Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Passmore Street, City of Westminster

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I wish to present a Petition to this honourable House on behalf of 20 residents in Passmore Street in the City of Westminster. The Petition relates that this is an official street playground, but children play there at risk of their lives because of the abuse by motorists, and parkers of cars, of the order which prevents them from using this street for passage. Twenty parents of children who play in this street present this Petition, and I beg leave to bring it before this honourable House.

To lie upon the Table.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for return,
of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict, c 77, during 1962."—[Miss Pike.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Exports

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary to the Treasury what recent action has been taken to increase the financial facilities for increasing exports; if he is satisfied that British firms are not at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors in this regard; what financial incentives are provided for the organising of consortiums so that large orders may be obtained from abroad; and what further action is being taken in this matter.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann): There have been

a number of improvements in guarantee facilities and banking arrangements in the last couple of years. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that adequate finance is generally available for exports, and that British firms and consortia are at least as well served as their competitors. These matters are kept under review.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Minister aware that some of us were kept in full employment during the most difficult days of the terrible depression by the obtaining of orders worth millions of pounds from the South American Republics, China and Russia? Now that large-scale orders are being given out for the building of factories and the provision of equipment, is the Minister satisfied that the financial arrangements are such that our people are not handicapped in any way?

Mr. du Cann: The points made by the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in this subject is very much welcomed, will certainly be borne in mind. In general, we are satisfied that the present arrangement works well. I hope that if he or any other hon. Members have particulars of individual cases which seem to indicate that improvements may be made, they will let us have them.

Universities, Scotland

Miss Herbison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that many students possessing the Certificate of Attestation of Fitness will be refused entrance to a Scottish university this year, what plans he now has for the extension of university provision in Scotland; and by which year there will be no shortages of places for students qualified to enter a university.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter): I regret that information is not available in the form requested. In the last 10 years the number of places at universities in Scotland has risen from 14,218 to 19,142, an increase of 35 per cent., and expansion is continuing at the existing universities. Moreover, as the hon. Lady will be aware, the Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow, will shortly attain university status. Consideration of the possibility of further development must plainly await the Report of the Robbins Committee.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that raising the status of the Royal College of Science and Technology will not provide one extra university place for Scottish students? Is he also aware that, although we have been given this expansion, each year there are in Scotland many hundreds of students who have the qualifications for entering a university but are debarred from entering because there are no places for them? Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought now to be able, without waiting for any report from the Crowther Committee, to give us some indication of what university expansion is to take place? Is he aware that the need is there without a report from any Committee?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the hon. Lady refers to the Crowther Committee obviously she means the Robbins Committee. I entirely disagree with her. There is already an expansion taking place in the number of student places, and I gave an indication of its order of magnitude. We have appointed this highly authoritative body, under Lord Robbins, which is to report later this year and I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Lady would think it quite unreasonable to consider extending further the number of places until we have had that Report.

Miss Herbison: I do not accept it as at all unreasonable that the Chancellor should be able so to do, knowing the shortage of places in Scottish universities. Surely the Minister must be aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] If hon. Members opposite knew anything about English they would realise that it is a question that I ask—surely the Minister must be aware that there is this shortage and that present plans for expansion in the eyes of everyone concerned with university education are shockingly inadequate for the needs of our students?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Lady must be aware that that is not the universal rule. She must also be aware that at this time of the year no action taken now could affect the entry this autumn. It is, therefore, surely elementary common sense, having obtained the wisdom of this highly authoritative body, to await its Report. I am bound to add one further thing, that the expansion in Scotland of university places—which is

actually slightly larger proportionately than in the southern part of these islands—is a thing of which I am very proud.

Pension Rights (Transferability)

Mr. McCann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the need for more mobility of labour, particularly amongst higher grade staffs, he will adopt the recommendation in paragraph 45 of the National Economic Development Council Report, Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth, regarding the transferability of pension rights.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) on 25th July.

Mr. McCann: Is the Minister aware of the tremendous concern among the higher grade staffs, particularly on the sales side, about the lack of facilities for transfer of pension rights? Is he aware that this matter has been under discussion since 1954? In order that Britain should make the best use of its labour and talents, will he do all he can to expedite this recommendation?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not disagree that this is an extremely important matter, in which I have taken a personal interest for some years, but, if the hon. Member studies the Answer, he will see that we are handling it in the most practical way.

Speculative Gains Tax

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the yield of the speculative gains tax during the last financial year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No assessments were made in 1962–63 on speculative gains arising in that year, since the information required could not be available until taxpayers' returns of income of that year were received, and these returns could not be made until the end of the year and are still coming in. The yield is unlikely to be large.

Mr. Ridley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely difficult to obtain a view on whether this is a good or a bad tax if we do not know what it yields? Will he give us the figures when he knows what the yield


for the first year is, so that we can make up our minds on this point?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says, and, of course, the figures will be available when they have come in.

Mr. Callaghan: As this tax is unlikely to yield any revenue, and as it has not stopped any of the transactions it was supposed to stop but merely deferred them by a matter of a week or two, can the Chief Secretary tell us what its purpose is, except to act as a subterfuge in order to persuade the unions that the Government are trying to tackle the problem?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That question is, of course, based on two wholly unwarranted hypotheses and not unnaturally leads the hon. Member to the wrong conclusion.

Local Authority Capital Finance (White Paper)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a White Paper dealing comprehensively with the question of local authority capital finance.

Mr. du Cann: Yes, and I regret that it has not proved possible to publish a White Paper before the House goes into recess. The review of local authority borrowing which the Government undertook has raised a number of important questions which are now being discussed with the local authority associations. When these discussions have been completed a White Paper outlining the Government's intentions will be published.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 3rd October last year that he was extremely concerned by the steep increase in the temporary debt of local authorities, which has since gone up by another £100 million? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor said that before Easter he thought a Bill was needed to extend the powers of the Public Works Loan Board, but he was considering the possibility of issuing such a White Paper as I ask for in this Question? Does the hon. Gentleman consider that, in view of the fact that the interest rate on loans by the Public Works

Loan Board is now ½ per cent. above that charged for borrowing by local authorities on the open market, it is time for some action on this matter?

Mr. du Cann: In answer to the first supplementary question, as I have said, the review has given rise to a number of important points which have taken time to consider and which of course must be for discussion with the local authority associations. This has delayed the moment when a public announcement can be made. We hope to publish a White Paper in the autumn. On the subject of legislation, certainly it would be true to say that legislation will be necessary because the amount available to the Public Works Loan Board is now only £50 million.

Robbins Committee (Report)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to receive the Report of the Robbins Committee; and on what date it will be published.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the very full statement I made on this matter on 17th July, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the considerable number of decisions on higher education which the Government have deferred because of the sitting of the Robbins Committee, can the Chief Secretary give an assurance that once the Report is in his hands every possible step will be taken to speed up consultation and so on so that by autumn, 1964, at least, the full effects of the Committee will be felt in higher education?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is certainly our intention to take as speedy a decision as possible when we have this very important Report, which I am at least as anxious to see as is the hon. Member.

International Liquidity

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what results have so far been achieved in his discussions with other authorities on proposals for increasing international liquidity, and relieving the pressure on the reserves of key currency countries.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend told the


House in his statement on 30th May and in reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) on 18th July. These discussions, which continue, are of course confidential.

Mr. Jay: Would the Minister agree that this is exceedingly important and that, now that the United States is being forced to defend its balance of payments, it becomes not only more urgent but should be much more easy to make some progress? Will he tell us what the next steps are to be?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Member has considerable experience of this matter. I think there is no quarrel between us as to the objectives, but I think his experience will tell him that probably the less said in public about the matter the better.

Crown Coins

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will authorise the issue of crown coins to the value of 5s. again.

Mr. du Cann: No, Sir.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend understand that my gratitude for that reply is formal rather than fundamental? Is he aware that for many purposes, for instance the purchase of a gallon of petrol from a machine, the crown is a coin of the smallest possible value which can be used? In many country districts in particular, where labour is hard to get, the issue of a coin which is of sufficient value to purchase many articles which are potentially saleable by mechanism is highly desirable, and nor is the coin of an inconvenient size.

Mr. du Cann: We shall certainly note what my hon. Friend has said. In recent years the minting of crowns has been limited to special historic occasions, but I think that any changes or unusual practices in relation to our coinage must now await the decisions made in the light of the Halsbury Report, which will probably be published in the autumn.

£10 Notes

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he authorised the issue of notes of £10 denomination.

Mr. du Cann: In November, 1959.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my hon. Friend give any indication to the House when this decision, taken in November, 1959, is likely to be implemented, because many banks for some time have had on their paying-in slips a column for a note of this particular denomination? Would he endeavour to examine the notes before they are issued so that, unlike the new issue of £5 notes, they shall not smell like a French newspaper?

Mr. du Cann: In answer to the last supplementary question, this is a matter for the Bank of England, but I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to its attention. In 1959 the Bank of England announced the issue of a series of four new notes. The new £1 note appeared in March, 1960, the new 10s. note in October, 1961, and the new £5 note in February, 1963. It is hoped to issue the new £10 note—I agree there is a need for it—early in 1964.

Mr. Lipton: Would it be asking too much of this depreciated Government to issue £1 notes which are really worth 20s.? The people would appreciate that much more.

Rates, Denton (Revaluation)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he gave to the communication from Denton Urban District Council about the revaluation of rates in Denton.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply which was sent to the council on 30th July.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will the Chancellor bear in mind—unless he has done so in his letter, which I doubt—that what the council wants is either a satisfactory explanation of why its rating on industrial values has gone down compared with the rest of the country, where it has gone up by 40 per cent., or—better still—that he will have these properties revalued? Will the right hon. Gentleman take another look at the position and give me an assurance on this point?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the hon. Member had better study the letter, but broadly its effect is that rating consequences follow from the fact that the houses are new and the factories are old.

Shillings

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the comparative superfluity of florins and sixpences and shortage of shillings, he will arrange for more shillings to be minted.

Mr. du Cann: Additional supplies of shillings have been put into circulation in the last six months and it is planned to mint further supplies in the second half of this year.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. Friend encourage the Mint to double or treble the number of shillings minted, because there is a real shortage of them? Is my hon. Friend aware that they are residing in gas meters, electricity meters, parking meters and so on, and will he remind himself from time to time to look in his pocket, where he will find only florins and sixpences?

Mr. du Cann: In the first six months of 1963 50 million shillings were issued, and in the second half it is planned to mint another 30 million. This compares with an annual average of 40 million. I hope that my hon. Friend will see that his point is largely being met by the fact that we got through last winter, after taking special precautions, with only a very small volume of complaints. I think the Royal Mint deserves great credit for that.

Universities (Post-graduate Students)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make available to the University Grants Committee for 1963–64 a sum adequate to ensure that all universities pay post-graduate students at least £1 per hour for all under-graduate teaching and demonstrations and to bring remuneration for this type of work more in line with the rate obtaining in colleges of advanced technology and technical colleges.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. This is a matter to be decided by each university or college in the light of its own particular circumstances and needs.

Mr. Boyden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some universities pay as low as 6s. 8d. an hour? Does he not think this is an absolute scandal?

If the right hon. Gentleman will not pay up, will he at least have the matter investigated so that it is brought out into the open?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am certainly not going to comment upon decisions of particular universities without much fuller knowledge of the facts. As the main Answer says, this is a matter for them.

Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some universities these rates have not been put up since 1951? Is he further aware that D.S.I.R. has some responsibility in that it lays down reasonable rates of payment for its students?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a matter, so far as the University Grants Committee is concerned, within the discretion of the individual universities whose circumstances vary. I think the hon. Lady will appreciate that it has certainly been the general view so far that it is better to leave these matters to them rather than to have an elaborate system of earmarked grants.

Rating Assessments

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give instructions to local rating valuation officers to make due comparison between residential properties of similar and dissimilar character when future rating assessments are made and when appeals are considered.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Valuation officers take account of such comparisons where appropriate both when making rating assessments and when considering appeals.

Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past valuation officers have used a phrase "the tone of the list" and that this has apparently been upset in recent months? Could my right hon. Friend take definite steps to restore the equilibrium in this matter of comparison?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has in mind the particular case which he drew to my right hon. Friend's attention, in which I agree that the letter sent to him was not very happily or completely expressed.


If it is another matter, perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to draw it to my attention.

Government Departments, London (Dispersal)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the Flemming Report on the dispersal of Government office personnel from central London.

Mr. Ross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received the Flemming Report concerning Government office building and dispersal of personnel from London; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) on 18th July.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I read that Answer with considerable interest and noticed that apart from the proposed shift of the Post Office Savings Bank to Durham, which was decided many years ago, any other proposals are to be within a limit of two hours' travel distance from the centre of London? Will the Chief Secretary bear in mind that this will make no difference whatsoever to a country like Scotland, and further that it is the concentration of Government Departments in the London area—not just in the centre of London—which is one of the major factors in bringing about the concentration of industry in the London area?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For once the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. In addition to the Post Office move, it is contemplated that up to 1,000 officers from other Departments should also be moved a greater distance from London than that to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. He is quite right in pointing out that the practicalities of the situation dictate in a good many cases a limit to the distance which it makes practical sense to move; but I hope he will feel from our action in setting up the whole of this operation that we have a great deal of sympathy with his point of view and that we want to see as good a move from central London as possible without causing a real sacrifice of efficiency or hardship to individuals.

Mr. Jay: Is it not essential that the Government should do something more vigorous here and not just on the outskirts of London? If the Government do not set an example, private industry can hardly be expected to follow it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman will study the answer that I gave, he will see that the Government have not only set a good example in recent years but are persisting in setting it. He will have noticed that in my statement to which I referred I indicated the further action being taken in connection with the nationalised industries.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was in that statement to which he has referred a reference to further study, particularly in relation to the fluidity of defence arrangements? Can he tell us when the House will have fuller information about the results of that study? May we have an assurance that he has not closed his mind to a much more complete removal of officers under Government control outside London?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have not closed my mind to further moves, but I think the House will agree that to attempt to superimpose extra moves on the Defence Departments, at the time of the defence reorganisation which the House was discussing yesterday, would not be very sensible.

Mr. Ridley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if the party opposite had their way and created a further six Ministries there would be a considerable increase in the number of offices?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would certainly undo some of the good work.

Public Trustee (Annual Revenue)

Sir M. Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual revenue of the Public Trustee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: £719,448, in the year ending March, 1963.

Sir M. Lindsay: In view of the complaints against the Public Trustee, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider a memorandum after the holidays setting out a case for an inquiry into the Public Trustee?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not aware of what complaints, or of the measure of complaint, my hon. Friend has in mind, but I should be very happy to see any memorandum that he cared to submit to me on the subject.

Water Undertakings (Tax)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to give local authority water undertakings and public water boards the same tax concessions as those enjoyed by private water companies.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. Private water companies do not enjoy special tax concessions.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the evidence of Mr. S. W. Hill, a well-known financial expert on opposed Private Bills in this House, who, according to page 62 of the Minutes of Evidence of the Joint Committee of both Houses dealing with petitions against the Bolton Water Order, 1962, said last December that they do enjoy such advantages? Since Mr. Hill is an acknowledged expert on water company finance, will the Minister make inquiries of Mr. Hill and reconsider his decision?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not a question of my decision. I was asked by the hon. Gentleman to state the position under the taxation law, and I have stated it. In view of what he said, it appears that even the greatest experts sometimes have their lapses or, perhaps, sometimes are misunderstood.

Mr. Hayman: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that at the proper time I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

National Incomes Commission (Second Report)

Mr. Ross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state his policy on profits and dividends in the light of the views expressed in the Second Report of the National Incomes Commission.

Mr. Willis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to ensure that increases in dividends and profits are kept strictly in step with increases in wages and salaries.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Second Report of the National Incomes Commission, Command Paper No. 2098, with specific reference to paragraph 185.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the light of the views expressed in the Second Report of the National Incomes Commission, he will institute a survey of the policies and practices in relation to pricing, profit margins and dividends in the separate branches of the construction industry.

Mr. Millan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that he has all the statistical and other information on profits and dividends to enable him to implement an adequate national incomes policy; and what steps he is taking to augment such information.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a valuable Report which contains a great deal of useful comment and advice on a number of matters, including profits. I hope it will be widely studied.
I agree with the Commission's view that profits being a form of income must, as such, come within the scope of any incomes policy which is to be effective and generally acceptable. The Government have already undertaken to restrain, by fiscal or other appropriate means, any undue growth of aggregate profits which may follow from restraint in earned incomes.
Nevertheless, as the Commission recognises, profits are quite different in kind from wages and salaries and it would be wrong to suggest that precisely the same considerations can be applied to both. The relationship between profits and wages and salaries in the context of a national incomes policy and of economic growth is under discussion in the National Economic Development Council.
A great deal of information about profits is already published. But this tends to be grouped under fairly broad headings and I agree that new ways will have to be found to obtain figures in the greater detail that the National Incomes Commission has in mind. We are discussing with the Federation of British Industries the best way of tackling this problem.

Mr. Ross: As well as being very valuable, does not the Chief Secretary agree that it is a matter of very considerable concern that the Commission declared itself unable to get the information on which it could base findings in relation to turnover and profit? If the right hon. Gentleman accepts to the extent indicated in his Answer that a survey of profits is urgently needed, does he equally accept the Commission's recommendation that this must be backed by enforcement powers to enable the Commission to get the information on which to base its findings? Does the Chief Secretary accept the reaction of the F.B.I. that somehow or other a Government can do what they like with wages but profits are, strangely, sacred and untouchable?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As regards the last part of the supplementary question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study my main Answer, which is perfectly explicit on that point. On the question of information, as I said in my main Answer, we accept the Commission's view that better information should be available, and we are in discussion as to a better method of obtaining it.

Mr. Lawson: I doubt if anyone would challenge the assertion that better information should be available. Is not the point of the question whether the information that is asked for will be available? I am not able to feel confident about that from listening to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it his intention to ensure that the Commission is enabled to obtain the information that it asks for regarding profits?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We are anxious to help the Commission in all aspects of its work and wish to co-operate with it, as we wish everybody in this country to co-operate with it. That is why I said that we are considering what methods are available for obtaining for the Commission the better information which it indicates it needs.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will be as tough with the F.B.I. as they have been with the nurses, teachers, probation officers, and the rest? Will he give an undertaking that by either administrative or legislative means

he will give teeth and claws to the National Incomes Commission, because otherwise there is no prospect of getting an incomes policy at all?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When one is entering into discussion with people as to the best method of obtaining information, it would be singularly maladroit to start by uttering threats.

Mr. Millan: The Chief Secretary has said that the Government are entering into discussions with the F.B.I. Have not the Government any ideas of their own? Are they making any suggestions to the F.B.I.? For example, are the Government doing anything about reforming the Companies Act so as to make very much more intelligible and significant figures on profits and turn-over legally necessary in the case of companies?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that it would be very helpful to these discussions to give a preview of them.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the Chief Secretary aware that the decision to refer this tiny corner of exhibition contracting to the National Incomes Commission has been regarded with ridicule by everybody on both sides of industry who knows anything about incomes? The somewhat pompous references of the Treasury at the end of the Report made the ridiculous all the more absurd. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that so far the National Incomes Commission has been quite unable to command the respect or the assent of either side of industry? If the Chief Secretary wants a wages policy and an incomes policy, which I very much doubt, when does he propose to ensure that machinery will be provided which will commend itself to those who have to operate it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what it is about this Report which appears to have so irritated the hon. Gentleman. Most people have found it a valuable and a thoughtful document of very considerable public value. As I made clear, it is our desire to help the Commission in its work, and I wish the hon. Gentleman would give an indication of similar willingness.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Chief Secretary yet realise that exhibition contracting is a tiny and infinitisimal proportion of the industry concerned? It


is the reference of that side of the industry which has aroused the ridicule of those concerned with the fixing of wage agreements in the whole of the construction industry. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this, as on speculative gains, the impression is fast gaining ground that he does not want to deal with profits anyhow, only with wages?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman could not have come to that conclusion if he had listened to my main Answer. As regards his main point, I think that this would be regarded with ridicule by people who fail to understand the relationship between the industry ha referred to and others.

United States Loan

Mr. Box: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the amount of the United States loan of 1946, the amount now owing, the amount of annual interest repayments, and the year when repayment of the loan is expected to be completed.

Mr. du Cann: The terms of relevant Agreements first effective in July, 1946, are contained in two White Papers, Cmd. 6708 and Cmd. 178.
Total drawings were $3,750 million. The amount outstanding is $3,345 million; that is $3,205 million principal, and $140 million deferred interest. Interest, payable at 2 per cent. per annum on the balance outstanding, amounted in 1962 to $68 million.
If no further instalments of principal are deferred, and payment of the instalment and interest deferred so far is not accelerated, the final payment will be made in the year 2002.

Mr. Box: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have received information from the statistical department of the Library that, as a result of the devaluation of 1949, we are now in the extraordinary position of owing considerably more about 16 years after this loan was made? Can he honestly foresee this loan ever being repaid if we suffer the misfortune of a Labour Government in the future, followed by the inevitable further devaluation of the £?

Mr. du Cann: One point I should like to make clear is that Great Britain has set an honourable example in debt repay-

ments, and I would hope to see that followed. As to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary about a potential Labour Government, we all hope to avoid that misfortune.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Economic Secretary propose to leave his hon. Friend's statement about devaluation at that? Has he no more words to say about it than that, or would he prefer me to ask him some questions now about the future course of the £ over the next few months?

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman can table a Question. If he wishes me to answer about the Government's economic policies at this moment, let me say to him very clearly that I have every confidence in them, and so apparently have people abroad, as witness the strength of the £ at the present moment. There is no question whatsoever of devaluation, and it is foolish to pretend that it exists.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am extremely glad that he has spoken for both sides of the House in his last answer?

Purchase Tax (Dog Identity Discs)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why identification discs for dogs which are decorated with dogs heads are regarded as suitable for personal adornment and therefore chargeable with Purchase Tax.

Mr. du Cann: These decorated discs are, in character, similar to a wide variety of ornamental medallions worn or carried by human beings, and it is not practicable to distinguish, at the point when tax becomes payable, those which will eventually be worn by dogs.

Mr. Yates: What evidence is there that an identification disc for a dog, specially manufactured to fit on to a dog's collar, such as the one I now hold in my hand, which has a bulldog stamped on to it, is likely to be worn by women rather than by men?

Mr. du Cann: There is a genuine difficulty here. I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest, which he is quite right to prosecute with care. Plain kinds of dog identity discs are free of tax. The trouble is that these items which he has


just demonstrated are in character similar to medallions suitable for personal use—for instance, as key ring attachments or as necklace pendants—and I am advised that they are so worn.

Highway Construction (Funds)

Mr. Webster: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider recourse to the London money market in order to raise funds for highway construction.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. This would not enable any more construction to be undertaken.

Mr. Webster: Though we welcome the use of the London market for raising money to build a motorway in Italy, would it not be a good thing, if such money were available, to channel it to building roads in this country?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, because, as I said in my main Answer, the particular methods of finance used for motorway construction is not the limiting factor. It is the call on resources.

Road User Taxation

Mr. Webster: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue during the latest convenient period from all types of road user taxation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The 1962–63 revenue in Great Britain from all types of road user taxation was £742 million.

Mr. Webster: Would not such a source of revenue not only assist in paying the interest rate on the type of loan which I mentioned in Question No. 27, but also, in due course, assist in the redeeming of the loan? Will not my right hon. Friend use greater imagination in the raising of finance for the building of roads?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I explained to my hon. Friend in my earlier Answer that it was not the method of raising finance but the call on resources which is the limiting factor on the very large programme which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is undertaking. As to the use of this money, it is part of the general revenue.

Mr. Webster: What is the resource that is the greatest shortage now?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The strain on the construction industry is at the moment a very important problem.

Tower of London, Museums and Art Galleries (Bank Holiday)

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to ensure that the Tower of London and the national art institutions will be open to the public during the weekend of the Bank holiday.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 25th July. Arbitration is still of course open to the Civil Service Union.

Dr. Stross: Is the Chief Secretary aware that many people think that arbitration which is open to the union—and which would reach a decision by about October, quite a long time ahead—is not satisfactory when there is virtually nothing to arbitrate about because the Treasury has not offered anything in reply to the rightful demands of the men? I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider the implications of this dispute, especially for the coming Bank Holiday. Will he not, therefore, consider making either a reasonable financial increase to the men, which will mean that we will avoid any closures, or otherwise appoint a conciliation officer, rather than leaving it to unsatisfactory arbitration? I beg him, for many reasons, to say something at this time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The adequacy or otherwise of the Treasury offer does not restrict the union in any way from arbitration. The issues on whatever claim the union cares to put forward could be properly arbitrated. The union has a clear alternative; either to accept the offer made to it or to reject it and go to arbitration. I very much regret the disappointment suffered by tourists, holiday-makers and others, but I am quite sure that this matter can be sensibly resolved if the union takes either of the constitutional courses open to it.

Dr. Stross: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that he appointed Lord Bridges to make a Report on security after the theft of the Goya, that that Report was made in June of last year, a considerable time ago, and that


its two main recommendations were that there should be improvements in conditions and pay, though neither of these have, I believe, been offered by the Treasury?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot accept what the hon. Member stated in the last part of that supplementary question. If the proposals made are deemed to be inadequate by the union, it has constitutional means open to it, without causing disappointment to people who are not connected with the dispute.

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

Mr. Stevens: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to introduce legislation to abolish the office of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Inland Revenue is examining in detail the legislation required to transfer in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates the making of assessments from these and other bodies of Commissioners to Inspectors of Taxes, but I cannot say when any legislation will be introduced.

Mr. Stevens: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he not aware that the first suggestion of this kind was made to the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income and mentioned in its final Report of 1955, eight years ago? Surely there should be some hope of action by now?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend must not expect me to anticipate the legislative programme.

Unemployment (Expenditure)

Mr. McMaster: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Government have spent on the relief of unemployment in each of the last three years in Scotland, Wales, the North-East Coast and Northern Ireland, respectively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Question covers a very wide range of measures taken by a number of Departments and involves very large sums of money. It has not been possible in the time available to assemble full details, but I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. McMaster: I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to write to me before the debate starts this afternoon. Is he satisfied with the proportion of the gross national product that is being spent on bringing these unproductive national resources of labour and machinery into production? Is he aware that if he brought them into production it would benefit the country as a whole?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend can hardly expect me to write to him retrospectively, but when he gets what I am afraid will be a very lengthy letter from me he will see that this is a massive and well-conceived effort.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Constitution (Barotseland)

Mr. Brockway: asked the First Secretary of State what conclusions have been reached in his discussions with the Paramount Chief of Barotseland regarding its status in the constitution of Northern Rhodesia.

The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave on 25th July.

Mr. Brockway: Will the First Secretary consider how far the Paramount Chief has the support of his people? Does he recall that at the election no candidate supported by the Paramount Chief was returned, while every candidate nominated by the United Party under Mr. Kenneth Kaunda was returned? Will the right hon. Gentleman stand for democracy in this area?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I also stand for the traditional friendship between Her Majesty's Government over many years and the people and Litunga of Barotseland. What is at stake now is a series of conversations between the Barotse native Government and the Government of Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that at that election there was no organised political party in Barotseland other than that mentioned by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway)? Will he confirm the special status and privileges enjoyed by Barotseland, which have been reaffirmed


by four previous Colonial Secretaries from both sides of the House?

Mr. Butler: I think that the undertakings given by previous Secretaries of State are well known and were referred to by me and accepted in the course of our conversations with the Barotseland leaders.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONFEDERATION OF SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEERING UNIONS (RESOLUTION)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister what action he will take upon the request sent to him by the annual conference of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions that an urgent investigation be made into the reasons why orders are being placed abroad for ships and the repairing of ships and into foreign competition.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has invited the Confederation to discuss this resolution adopted at its annual conference.

Mr. Ellis Smith: While appreciating that reply, may I ask the Prime Minister if he agrees with me that the shipbuilding industry of Britain is among the best in the world? Since this industry's competitive position has worsened, will he now agree that the Government should go fully into this matter—and deal with the high costs of raw materials and so on that are having to be borne by the industry—so that it may be put in a better competitive position?

The Prime Minister: All the aspects will be taken fully into account, and discussions are going on with both ship-owners and ship builders.

Mr. P. Williams: While accepting the value of the £60 million credit scheme and the importance of getting as much efficiency into the industry as possible, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he accepts that considerable difficulties are made for the industry in getting overseas orders, especially from South Africa, where certain orders have been cancelled and others placed in jeopardy because of the stated policy of the Labour Party?

The Prime Minister: All these problems have to be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — D NOTICE SYSTEM

Commander Kerans: asked the Prime Minister whether he will institute an inquiry into the system of D notice issues to the Press.

The Prime Minister: The Government have been looking into the way the D notice system works. As a result we have decided, with the agreement of the Press representatives on the Services Press and Broadcasting Committee, to introduce certain modifications in the procedure for consulting them in future about the issue of D notices on sensitive subjects. I am sure this will meet the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

Commander Kerans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that the country wants a more secure and simpler organisation.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that the discussions we have had will make the system work better. Broadly speaking, it works well, but there are sudden and special cases and we hope to get over some of the difficulties.

Mr. Lipton: Can the Prime Minister explain how all kinds of people who should not know anything about D notices seem to know about them as soon as they are issued so that the effect of this is to draw attention to security matters which otherwise would not be noticed at all?

The Prime Minister: I think that, taken broadly over a wide field, the system has worked efficiently. However, there are special cases which present special difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEAT OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up an independent committee to inquire into the possibility and desirability of moving the seat of government from London to the provinces, in view of the increasing congestion in the metropolis.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I share the hon. Member's concern about the congestion in London, but I do not think that the solution is to move the entire seat of government elsewhere.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the laughter from hon. Members that accompanied that Answer is typical of the frivolity with which this problem is being tackled by the Government? Does he not agree that the current policies being pursued by the Government will at best slow down the rate of increase of congestion in the Metropolis, and that one of the biggest attractions of London is the fact that it is the seat of government? Is he aware that if a tremendous and imaginative effort were made to get this centre into the provinces, other highly desirable consequences would automatically follow?

The Prime Minister: There are great advantages which we enjoy in having a single city as the seat of government and the main seat of finance and commerce.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE (POLICY)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of the new situation resulting from the Sino-Soviet controversy and the conclusion of a nuclear test ban treaty, he will make as statement on the changes in foreign, defence, and East-West trade policies that Her Majesty's Government are making.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add at present to what I told the House on 25th July.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does the Prime Minister recollect that President Kennedy, in his speech at the university on 11th June, stressed the importance of revising Western attitudes to peace, the cold war and Soviet Union if there are to be successful negotiations? Is it not more urgent than ever after the conclusion of the test ban treaty to begin the process of revising certain Western policies which are an insuperable obstacle to reaching agreement, such as insistence on Germany being a member of the Western Alliance even if she is united?

The Prime Minister: All sorts of possibilities open up as the result of the signature and ratification of the treaty by the countries concerned. We are in

close consultation with our allies, but I do not think it would help to make a statement today.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister if he will give his decisions on the requests made to him during his talks on Monday, 29th July, relating to certain problems of pensions and allowances.

The Prime Minister: I am considering the representations to which my hon. Friend refers together with other related matters and I will arrange for a statement to be made as soon as possible.

Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I interpret on the basis of being very reasonable, may I ask him how long he thinks it will be before a favourable statement will be made, because it will be very welcome when it is made?

The Prime Minister: We have to consider these things rather carefully, but I hope to be able to make a statement within two months.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (LETTER)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has now received from President de Gaulle to the letter he sent on 25th July.

The Prime Minister: I have not yet received a reply.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the statement made by President de Gaulle at his Press conference on Monday last about the action of the Anglo-Saxons, will the Prime Minister make it clear that Her Majesty's Government would warmly welcome the co-operation of the French Government in the efforts that are being made by the Anglo-Saxons to reduce East-West tension and to promote an advance towards general disarmament, and that the French Government could make a notable contribution by signing or adhering to the nuclear test ban treaty?

The Prime Minister: We hope to discuss all these matters fully with our allies, including our French allies.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the initialling of a nuclear test ban treaty, what steps he now intends to take to seek to persuade France, and other nations now or soon capable of producing nuclear weapons, to refrain from developing and testing such weapons; if he will now make a new effort, by means of a summit conference or in other ways, to promote general disarmament; and if, in this connection, he will propose the establishment of zones of disengagement in central Europe, the Middle East, or elsewhere, and the total denuclearisation of the African continent.

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is anything; I can usefully add to the statement which I made to the House on 25th July and to the replies which I gave to Questions on 30th July.

Mr. Driberg: Could it in any way hinder progress towards more general disarmament if the Prime Minister were to take some opportunity, for instance, of mentioning the matters referred to in the last part of the Question, such as disengagement—an idea which the right hon. Gentleman once mentioned favourably but which I think he has not referred to for some considerable time? When he is discussing a test ban agreement with President de Gaulle, would the right hon. Gentleman consider drawing the President's attention to the relevant passages in the late Pope's Encyclical, Pacem in Terris?

The Prime Minister: All these are important and relevant matters, but, if I have learned anything from my experience in the last few years, it is to proceed by patient negotiation rather than by premature public statements before full consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, following the conclusion of a nuclear test ban treaty, he will now make a statement on a possible meeting between President Kennedy, Mr. Khrushchev and himself, either at a formal summit conference or during the September meetings of the United Nations General Assembly.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 25th July.

Mr. Henderson: In the event of the forthcoming discussions in Moscow between the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Dean Rusk and Mr. Khrushchev being satisfactory, may we take it that the Prime Minister would hope that a meeting between the three heads of Government would be held in the near future?

The Prime Minister: Of course, I should hope that we would be able to advance along the line we have set ourselves, but again I think that it would be a mistake for me to make any statement until the treaty has been signed and ratified, which is an important process in the United States. From that stage we may advance to further discussion and talk.

Oral Answers to Questions — TENANTS (LEGAL RIGHTS)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the uncertainty among tenants about their legal rights, their inability to obtain police protection and their fear of further decontrol of rents, and that this results from a lack of co-ordinated activity among the departments concerned; and whether he will co-ordinate joint action to be taken by the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs and the Law Officers of the Crown, so that anxiety on this point may be allayed.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends are in close and constant touch on all these matters and I see no need to intervene myself.

Mr. Stewart: Is the Prime Minister aware that the fear of further decontrol in future is inhibiting some tenants from claiming necessary repairs or otherwise claiming their legal rights? Therefore, in the unlikely event of the Government winning the next General Election, is it their intention to extend rent decontrol to houses of lower rateable value than that which at present applies?

The Prime Minister: I can hardly be expected to answer a question the hypothesis of which is so unsound.

Mr. Graham Page: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that during the six years from 1945 to 1951 only three Bills for the benefit of tenants became law but that during the last six years under Conservative Governments no fewer than two a year for the benefit of tenants have become law—statutory repairs obligations on landlords, compulsory purchase orders for the benefit of tenants, multi-occupation regulations, standard amenities, improvement grants and many others? Have not the Conservative Government on every occasion given local authorities the power to enforce these for the benefit of tenants who are too nervous to enforce them themselves?
Finally, if there is any uncertainty among the tenants about their legal rights, is it not the fault of the Leader of the Opposition who had forgotten to do his homework?

The Prime Minister: I welcome that interesting statement of our very good record.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the remarkable legislative record to which the Prime Minister's attention has been drawn, is it not clear that what we want is fewer ineffective Bills to protect tenants and one really effective Bill which will protect them? On the last point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), will the Prime Minister make it clear that the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I were in agreement on this issue during the debate and that the Minister did not seem to know of the non-existent powers of local authorities to which the hon. Member has drawn attention?

The Prime Minister: I think that every one has been able either to hear or to read the debate and to draw his own conclusions.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (SECURITY COUNCIL AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETINGS)

Mr. D. Foot: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the United Kingdom to be represented by a Minister of the Crown during the remaining stages of the present meeting of the Security Council and throughout the forthcoming meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The Prime Minister: My noble Friend the Foreign Secretary will be attending the General Assembly for about 10 days towards the end of September, and the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs will also attend for part of the session. I do not consider ministerial representation at the current meetings of the Security Council to be necessary.

Mr. Foot: Does not the Prime Minister consider that when issues of the highest international importance are being considered by the Security Council or the General Assembly the views of Her Majesty's Government would be much more appropriately expressed by a Minister of the Crown than by a civil servant, however eminent the civil servant may be? Might it not be an advantage if there were a Minister resident at the United Nations in much the same way that the Prime Minister himself was resident at the Allied headquarters in North Africa during the later stages of the war?

The Prime Minister: So far as I know, it is not the practice of any members of the Security Council to be represented by Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is it fair to expose civil servants to the glare of public debate in the way that they are exposed on the Security Council at the moment? Does not the theory of the constitution demand that civil servants should be nameless, anonymous and faceless? Would not we get into trouble sooner or later if we departed from that theory?

The Prime Minister: As far as I know, it is the practice on the Security Council for all the countries to be represented by ambassadors or by representatives of their Governments of that kind. At the Assembly, it has been the practice for Ministers to take part and sometimes Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries, and so forth.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Prime Minister is aware, is he not, that Governor Stevenson, who heads the American delegation to the United Nations on a permanent basis, is a member of President Kennedy's Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: That is quite true, but he is not a Foreign Secretary. He is a special representative of the President


because the American Cabinet system is a very different organisation and has a different structure from our own.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL SCOTLAND AND NORTH-EAST (DEVELOPMENT)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now announce Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the North-East.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the Government's proposals for central Scotland.

The Prime Minister: The Government have now received comprehensive and detailed reports on central Scotland and north-east England prepared under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my noble Friend the Lord President. These reports contain proposals for regional development which involve a major new departure from the policies which have hitherto been followed by Governments of all parties.
The Government intend to lay before the House by the end of October White Papers which will put forward proposals for the planned development of these regions. These proposals will represent a further stage in our policies of stimulating economic growth and will deal not only with industrial development but also with a wide range of public service investment. The White Papers will include the Government's views on suggestions that have been made for the fostering of growth places.
This new development of policy will need to be considered against the background of the far-reaching measures, unprecedented in scope and importance, which have already been taken by the Government to give immediate support and lasting benefit to areas of special economic difficulties. I will with permission circulate a list of the more important of these measures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. But I wish particularly to mention "free depreciation" introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the new and greatly improved grants now available under the Local Employment Acts and the listing of the whole of Tyneside and Tees-side as development districts.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is today announcing further additions to the list of development districts in central Scotland and the north-east of England. These additions will make it possible, by rounding up the areas concerned, for the Government to pursue a policy of fostering growth places.
My right hon. Friend is also going ahead with the preliminary planning of a new industrial estate in the Tees-side area.

Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that very important statement, may I ask him to accept the thanks of those from the North-East who consider that the appointment of Lord Hailsham under his direction has been of great benefit in developing this new outlook for the areas in economic difficulty? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is likely to be any difficulty about finance or anything of that kind? Will it really be a comprehensive plan? Will my right hon. Friend also accept our thanks for the speed with which this action has been taken, which should serve as an example to all other Government Departments?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I know how hard she has worked for and how deeply she feels the problem of the north-east area. The same is true of the Scottish central area. I think that these long-term proposals which we shall be able to work out and the new arrangements for scheduling special places give us the possibility of advancing upon a new and very hopeful line of policy.

Mr. Stodart: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great benefits that would accrue to the central Scotland area and far beyond it if the tremendous potential growth point around Grangemouth and thereabouts became eligible for the concessions given in the recent budget?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is making a reply later, but as it is a Written Answer I do not think that it would be wrong for me to deal with one or two points. The new places include a number of districts, but they include Grangemouth and Falkirk, in Central Scotland, and Durham, Birtley


and Washington Station, in north-east England. That meets the point of improving the growth possibilities and not merely concentrating upon particular areas where there is a high rate of unemployment.

Mr. Grimond: As the development of a regional structure is necessary in other areas besides central Scotland and the north-east of England, and as it would be extremely difficult to judge the Government's proposals if they were confined to these areas—because, surely, they must take into account possible parallel development in other regions of Scotland and England—may we take it that the White Papers will deal with regional development generally and the creation of growth points in other areas as well as these two?

The Prime Minister: The White Paper will deal with these two special cases, which are the two most important at the moment. Then, of course, other policies may develop from them. It is a good plan—it certainly has proved to be one in most of the things one tries to do—to start at definite points and see what progress can be made.

Sir J. Duncan: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on this imaginative approach to the problem, may I ask at the same time that he will do nothing to hurt existing industry, such as the jute industry in Dundee?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend need not have any anxiety.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our interest in the plan for regional development would be enormously increased if he or somebody on behalf of the Government would inform the House how many new jobs will be provided in the course of the next few years as a result of this proposed development? Is he aware that in spite of all the Questions which hon. Members, on both sides, have asked of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and others representing the Government in connection with these important problems of unemployment, we have never been able to ascertain how many jobs will be provided and that this is the essential prerequisite of a successful regional development plan?

The Prime Minister: I should have said that it was the essential result of successful policies.

Mr. Speir: In warmly welcoming the personal interest which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken during the past year in the problems of the North-East, may I, nevertheless, ask him, when drawing up the White Paper proposals, to give careful consideration to the working of the Local Employment Act, which many people in the North-East think is being interpreted far too unimaginatively and in too narrow a fashion? May I particularly ask whether the whole of the North-East should not be scheduled? Is it not altogether unreasonable to refuse applications for assistance from any firm which can provide employment in the North-East?

The Prime Minister: I think that what we have done recently under the present legislation is the most that we can do, which is to add these places as we have done—Tyneside and Tees-side—and now these additional places in Durham. If the new survey and the White Papers make further legislation necessary, then, of course, new points can be dealt with.

Mr. Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that what he has announced today only administratively meets the shortcomings of the Local Employment Act that were pointed out when that Measure was going through the House? Secondly, is he aware that there already exist in Scotland—in Lanarkshire, for instance—great areas which are capable of development and which could have been developed and which, although they have been listed, have not had adequate help?
Will the Prime Minister answer one specific question: is there any definite promise of any job going in central Scotland as a result of the changes that he will unveil in the month of October, when we are a little nearer an election?

The Prime Minister: A great number of schemes have been brought to Scotland in the last years and are being brought under the Budget and under many other schemes, both in central Scotland, the great pulp mill in the north of Scotland, and these new proposals—[Interruption.] Everybody knows this and the rate of unemployment and the fall in unemployment shows it.

Mr. Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this announcement will be very pleasing to those people who believe in the future of the north-east of England, but is he aware that 75,000 extra jobs are required there over the next four or five years? Does he believe that the measures contained in the White Paper will help to remedy this problem? Will he say whether we are to have a road link between the Midlands and the North-East, and can he give an assurance that this matter will be debated very soon after we reassemble after the Recess?

The Prime Minister: The most I can say is that there will be a debate if it is arranged in the ordinary way. I hope that both the things which we have done over past years, including the radical change in our whole structure of taxation and other similar measures, will bring their results and that these new proposals will be fully fruitful.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman has just referred to things which have been done in past years, may I ask him if he is aware that the number of people at work in Scotland now, 1963, is slightly less than the number in 1951, 12 years ago? Is the Prime Minister now expecting to improve on the record of the last twelve years, and if so, by how much?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these over-simplifications he makes are absolutely invalid. He might as well say that there have been movements of population in the present as there have been in the past. There have been enormous developments in certain areas in England and less development in others. What we are trying to do is to redirect to some extent these natural movements and see if we can get a better balance in the different parts of the country.

Mr. Wilson: Does it not occur to the Prime Minister that one of the main reasons for the movement of population over the past 12 years is the entire failure of the Government to provide work for the people who are there? Does he really consider it an invalid test of the Government's success in the location of industry policy to compare jobs in Scotland now with those of 12 years ago?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think it takes no account of all kinds of natural forces which are at work, and which have largely been counteracted.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the success of these measures in future will depend to some extent, as they have in the past depended, upon the determination and enterprise and sense of resolute purpose of local authorities? Is he aware that since April the County Borough of Darlington, with most splendid help from my right hon. Friends at the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour and their officers, has created over 400 new jobs and that many, many more are imminent, and that there are at any rate, whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, 3,000 families in Darlington who are facing the threat of unemployment who will welcome this statement today?

Mr. Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that we would welcome a carefully worked out long-term plan to change the economy of the North-East, but is he also aware the steps which the Government have taken so far and the Government's whole thinking on this problem are not effective to match the size of the problem yet? As this plan is not to be announced before October, could he tell us what specific steps the Government are going to take to induce more employment to the area before the winter? Finally, is the Prime Minister aware that virtually the only thing the Government changed when they brought in the Local Employment Act was to schedule local employment exchange areas instead of regions, and they have gone back to the scheduling of regions? Will he tell us why they wasted the whole of these three years in this futile way?

The Prime Minister: I think that is a slightly ungenerous way of dealing with it. Taking last year, over 28 advance factories have been set up in Scotland and the north-east of England——

Mr. Ross: But how many jobs?

The Prime Minister: —programmes for extra short-term construction work have been placed, at very large figures of public expenditure, and the Budget decisions were generally welcomed, I thought, by


the House, certainly by the local authorities in the area, and by industrialists, and they will have great effect.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this now.

Following is the list:
Measures already taken by the Government in recent months to assist these regions include the new and greatly improved grants which are now available under the Local Employment Acts. The increase in investment allowances has been supplemented by the introduction of "free depreciation" in all development districts. Government grants for the clearance of derelict sites in these districts have been increased.
On training, a significant contribution has been promised for the new industrial training boards, and the retraining facilities in Government training centres are being doubled—over a half of the increase going to Scotland and the North-East. The very large credit which has been made available to help shipbuilding will be of particular benefit to these regions, as will the offers of extra overseas aid which have been linked to surplus production capacity.
No fewer than 28 advance factories for Scotland and North-East England have been announced in little more than a year. Programmes of extra short-term construction work are being undertaken in these regions, and public investment expenditure is being increased. The whole of Tyneside and Tees-side have been included in the list of development districts. We have given massive help to the Fort William Pulp Mill project and are assisting completion of the new docks on Tees-side.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (INDEPENDENCE CONFERENCE)

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I should like to make a statement about the Malta independence conference.
The Malta conference met in London on 16th July, and ended an hour ago.
The main task of the conference was to provide answers to two questions: should Malta now become independent? And, if so, what should be her constitution?
Before addressing themselves to the basic question of independence, the conference considered the form which an independence Constitution might take. Large parts of the Constitution did not raise any acute controversy and a wide measure of agreement was reached. How-

ever, it was not possible to reconcile divergent views on certain important issues, some of which raised questions of principle and conscience.
The differences between the delegations centred upon the following matters:
(a) the status of the Roman Catholic Church;
(b) the choice between Monarchy and Republic;
(c) Commonwealth membership;
(d) the electoral system;
(e) the extent to which certain provisions of the Constitution should be entrenched; and
(f) the question whether fresh elections should be held before independence.
The Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party pointed out that, in their manifestos at the last General Election and throughout the campaign, they had both come out strongly in favour of early independence, and that together they had polled 76 per cent. of the votes cast. There was, therefore, in their opinion, no doubt about the wishes of the Maltese people on this question.
On the other hand, the three smaller parties, who together polled 24 per cent. of the votes, maintained that independence had not been a central issue at the last election, and urged that the views of the electors should be sought on this specific question through a referendum.
I explained that, in the opinion of the British Government, the results of the 1962 elections were evidence that a substantial majority favoured early independence. However, to meet the wishes of the three smaller parties, I proposed to the two main parties that any possible doubts should be removed by a referendum, and that, in the meantime, further discussion of the Constitution should be deferred.
The Nationalist Party expressed the view that a referendum on independence was unnecessary, since the people of Malta had already given a clear decision on this issue at the last general election. Nevertheless, it said it would be prepared to agree, provided that all parties accepted the proposal for a referendum and would participate in it.
The Malta Labour Party, whose delegation had meanwhile withdrawn from the conference, was separately consulted. It declared itself unwilling to participate in a referendum, unless it was given a firm undertaking that a number of amendments which it proposed to the draft Constitution would be accepted in advance and that fresh elections would be held before independence. The other parties felt unable to accept these conditions, since they involved prejudging controversial issues which, in their view, could be settled only in relation to the constitution as a whole, after the prior question of independence had been decided.
After consultation with individual delegations on the situation thus created, I reached the conclusion that, in view of the probability of a boycott by a large section of the electorate, a referendum would be unlikely to produce a reliable result and that the proposal would therefore have to be dropped.
In these circumstances, there seemed to be no longer any justification for withholding a decision on the Malta. Government's application for independence. I accordingly announced that Her Majesty's Government had decided that Malta should become independent not later than 31st May, 1964.
In the light of this definite decision, I have invited the Prime Minister of Malta to hold discussions in Malta with representatives of all political parties, in a further endeavour to agree upon joint constitutional proposals. The British Government cannot divest themselves of their share of responsibility for Malta's future constitution; though we shall probably feel able to accept any provisions agreed by the Maltese parties among themselves. Should the parties fail to reach agreement, the outstanding issues could be referred for decision either to the people of Malta or to the British Government, as might be most appropriate.
A full report of the conference will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Secretary of State aware that more than one leader of the delegation has expressed to me the feeling that the whole conference has been a shambles? Really, it is distressing that a settlement has not been

reached. Now the Secretary of State himself has said that Her Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of responsibility for Malta's future Constitution. In this connection, will he give consideration himself to framing a human rights statute which will get the support of all the political parties?
Further, can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is not possible to have a General Election now? Finally, can he say what consideration has been given to the resolution passed by the United Nations on 13th May this year?

Mr. Sandys: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's remark about the conference being a shambles, it certainly was not the chairman's fault. In these conferences it is quite normal for delegations to walk in and out and to issue all sorts of ultimatums—I am quite used to that—but although some of these delegations were not always present in the plenary sessions they were quite ready to have meetings with me on the side, and we managed to do our business perfectly satisfactorily without anybody losing face.
As to human rights, I made it clear that we have our share of responsibility for the future Constitution of Malta. But so do the people of Malta, and it is much better that they should try further to hammer out a Constitution that is produced by agreement than that I should try to impose one here.
It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that no settlement has been reached; that nothing has been decided. We have decided the most important thing of all, which is that Malta is to be independent before 31st May next year, and I believe that that is a very important step—it resulted in no less than three parties walking out. But I think that we have come to the right answer, and I felt that this one decision was quite big enough—as much as the patient can take—and I now hope that, in the light of that firm decision, the parties will try to come to some agreement about what their future Constitution should be.
As I mentioned in my statement, a further election is one of the issues between the parties.

Mr. Wall: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his courageous


decision, may I ask him whether he will undertake that we shall continue generous economic help to Malta, not only in the few months before her independence, but in the years immediately after independence?

Mr. Sandys: We fully realise that Malta will continue to need financial support from us. I made it quite clear that our support will not be cut off, and that Malta will be neither one penny the better nor the worse off as a result of independence.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the Colonial Secretary realise—I am sure he does—that the changes made in our defence programme—the island has, for instance, been dependent for a century and a half on the Royal Navy—make any kind of independence mean very little unless there is a new and firm economic foundation for the life of Malta? What specific proposals has the right hon. Gentleman made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that will enable Malta to have independence with a prospect of holding and increasing its people's standard of life?

Mr. Sandys: At this conference we considered the constitutional aspect. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience as a former Colonial Secretary, it is not normal at such a conference to consider financial arrangements. Those are normally dealt with between Governments.

Sir W. Teeling: Is it not true that my right hon. Friend just did not get a chance to discuss economic questions, even if he had wanted to? It is quite clear to anyone who followed the last General Election in the island that the whole question of independence was clearly raised, and that the vast majority of the people were in favour of it on the lines that my right hon. Friend is now advocating.

Mr. Sandys: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that some of the main points of disagreement were centred around the issue of human rights, which are an intrinsic part of our way of life and without the adoption of which there cannot possibly be any fair and free elections or consultation with

the Maltese people? Would it not be quite intolerable for this country to launch Malta into independence without first ensuring that those human rights are injected into the Maltese way of life without following the common practice on these occasions of having elections before independence is introduced?

Mr. Sandys: We have not prejudged any of these issues.

Sir P. Agnew: While I do not dissent from the proposal that Malta should receive independence, is it not also true that any rights—whether by Bill of Rights, or entrenched in the constitutional instrument, or however enshrined they may be—can, after independence, be changed at will by the sovereign independent Maltese Parliament? Would not my right hon. Friend, therefore, be right not to insist on the embodying of such rights as some precondition of granting independence, but to trust the Maltese people to use it sensibly is they have it?

Mr. Sandys: I trust the Maltese people to want a Constitution that does entrench human rights.

Mr. H. Wilson: While recognising the difficulties of this conference, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be more specific at this stage on the two crucial points? First, would he not give an assurance that on the question of free elections he will insist—because we have, as a House, the right to insist—on the incorporation into their Constitution of the same provisions that we have in our Representation of the People Act? I am thinking, as he knows, particularly of Section 101. Will he not, at any rate, say that it is his view, as it is the view of the House, that the Maltese people should have the same rights and protection as we have in that Act? That could be said now.
Secondly, on the question of whether there should be an election before independence becomes effective, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that this issue is not prejudiced either way by his statement, or by his answers this afternoon?

Mr. Sandys: I can certainly give that assurance.
The right hon. Gentleman's question about human rights is the same as that asked by the hon. Lady the Member for


Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Now that we have settled that there will be independence, I want the Maltese parties to make a further effort to get closer to one and another on this question, because I believe that there is room for narrowing the gap. At the end of the day, we shall have to consider our own position.

Mr. H. Wilson: But since, apparently, there has not been agreement even in a conference chaired by an independent chairman—the right hon. Gentleman—and while we all hope that there may be an improvement in the position, is it not rather difficult now to leave this to a conference of the Maltese parties under the chairmanship of their own Prime Minister, who, in this matter, is a very controversial figure?
Would it not be right for the right hon. Gentleman to declare what is, I am sure, his own view and the view of everyone in this House—and it would help as a catalyst in this matter—that before we grant independence the Maltese people should have the same rights and protections in their electoral practices as the British people have?

Mr. Sandys: In the course of a fort-night's conference and discussion of these matters I think that my views have become pretty well known to the members of the Maltese delegations. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to make a public statement——

Mrs. Castle: Why not?

Mr. Sandys: The House knows how I feel about these things—I do not need to say. I want the parties to try to agree. There are about fifty different questions that have to be settled by the parties, and I do not want to pick and choose odd ones here and there, and say, "This is a condition; otherwise, we will not agree." I have already made it quite clear in my statement that we do not divest ourselves of the responsibility for ultimately seeing that this is a Constitution that we can recommend to the House.
In the end, there has to be an Order in Council. That has to be laid on the Table of the House, and the House will be able to ask me to explain why I have recommended Her Majesty to produce an Order in Council of this kind. I therefore cannot get away from my ultimate

responsibility. But I would ask the House to leave me to do the tactics so that hon. Members can concern themselves later with the policy issues involved.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people will think this to be at least the least bad solution open to a difficult problem? The right hon. Gentleman seems quite content that his head should be bloody but unbowed, and perhaps that is the most we can hope for. Could the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? Do I understand from his last answer that he may have official conversations still with the Maltese parties? When the Order in Council comes before the House, could the right hon. Gentleman, if not undertake, say that there will be some hope that he will be able to say something more then about the conditions mentioned? On the economic side, isit intended to have further discussions about this in the coming year? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this might be an opportunity of getting international agencies involved in the difficult problem of sustaining the Maltese economy?

Mr. Sandys: The Order in Council, of course, will be debatable by the House, like all Orders laid before the House. It is a matter for the House to decide what it wishes to discuss.
As for international money, first of all there will be talks on this matter between Her Majesty's Government and the Maltese Government. One of the advantages of independence in the economic field—and we have heard a lot about the disadvantages—is that an independent country is better able to attract international money than a Colony.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unfortunately, there will never be agreement between the Maltese parties until the Maltese hierarchy begins to learn something of what has been going on in Rome since last October and refrains from exercising the spiritual tyranny by which it succeeded in distorting the last elections in Malta? In any Constitution in the framing of which he has a share—and he has agreed that he has ultimate responsibility to the House—will the right hon. Gentleman see not only that there is an adequate human rights clause, guaranteeing freedom of


worship and freedom for religious minorities, but also that it does not contain a long list of exceptions which would have the effect of nullifying that clause?

Mr. Sandys: I fully understand the hon. Member's point of view. That is very delicate ground on which I do not propose to tread this afternoon.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is one point which cannot be left where he is trying to leave it? When the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he has made his own views clear on the question of electoral procedure to the parties to the conference, that is not good enough for the House.
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that—I am sure through no fault of his own—the different parties to the conference have different ideas on what his views are on this point? This is the important point to single out from the 50. It is absolutely crucial. Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to make his view clear and say now that he is in favour of applying the same protections that we enjoy when the Constitution comes about?
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that when an Order in Council is placed before the House it cannot be amended and that, therefore, the House has no powers in this matter? Does he not feel that he can help the process of agreement in Malta if he says that he supports corrupt practices provisions on the lines of Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act?

Mr. Sandys: I think that I have already explained that I do not want to pick out individual points. If the right hon. Gentleman had presided over this conference I think that he would agree with me that it is better to let tempers cool off for a little while rather than to add any more to the controversy.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue this further now.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION (NEW COUNTIES)

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I will, with permission, Sir, make a statement to the House.
The Government have been considering the proposals of the Local Government Commission for England to make the county borough of Burton upon Trent a non-county borough in the administrative county of Staffordshire, and to form three new administrative counties by the amalgamation of Huntingdonshire with the Soke of Peterborough, Cambridgeshire with the Isle of Ely and Rutland with Leicestershire.
The Commission thought that Burton, Huntingdonshire, Rutland, the Soke of Peterborough and the Isle of Ely, which are among the smallest of the county boroughs and counties in England, lacked the scope and resources to provide effectively the services required of major authorities.
The Government consider that there is great force in this view. They have decided to accept the proposal for Burton upon Trent. They believe that the inclusion of Burton in Staffordshire will bring real benefit to the town, in the way of better-founded county services, and to the county in the strengthening of its population and resources.
The Government have also decided to accept the proposals for forming two new counties from Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough, and from Cambridge and the Isle of Ely. The problems of these four counties are closely related. They arise not only from the small size of three of them, but also from the dominating position of the cities of Cambridge and Peterborough in the counties to which they belong. The two new counties will have a much bettor balance between town and country than exists at present, and they will each be of a size and coherence which should enable a good standard of service to be provided. On any likely view of developments in the foreseeable future, I am confident that the amalgamations will materially strengthen local government throughout the four counties.
This means that Cambridge City will continue to be a non-county borough. I


regret the disappointment to the city, but considerable weight must be given to the fact that three of the four county councils directly concerned faced with the need of change are ready to accept the two-county arrangement, only the Isle of Ely being opposed. There was, moreover, a strong volume of opposition to the Commission's draft proposal to form a single county from the four, which would alone have created the conditions for making Cambridge into a county borough.
Rutland's situation is different. There can be little question that a fully adequate standard of service to its residents could be better secured if it formed part of a larger county, and the Commission very reasonably proposed its amalgamation with Leicestershire. But its problems are peculiarly its own. Joining it with Leicestershire would bring no advantage to that county and Leicestershire County Council have not asked for an amalgamation. Rutland has been able to rely heavily on other bodies, and especially Leicestershire County Council, for a number of services. Rutland will no doubt be able to meet foreseeable demands in the same sort of way. Determined though they are to carry through a thorough-going overhaul of local government, the Government have decided there are grounds for treating Rutland's case as unique and they do not propose to proceed with the Commission's proposal.
Parliament will, in due course, be asked to approve Orders giving effect to these changes.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is there any significance in the fact that the Minister has picked three or four proposals out of those made by the Commission and has not commented upon others of considerable importance, such as the proposal to enlarge the City of Leicester? Is it the Government's intention to announce shortly what it thinks about the other points which the Commission made?
Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the need for a proper interval of time between making the text of any Orders available to hon. Members and actually debating them in the House? Hon. Members will want the opportunity

not only to study them themselves but to consult their constituents and local authorities. We should also need adequate time in the House to discuss the Orders themselves.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the grounds for treating Rutland's case as unique? Is it that the Tory majority in that constituency is rather more shaky than those of the surrounding areas? Will the Minister realise that when we notice how tender he is to the pleas of Rutland and contrast that with the deaf ears of the Ministry to representations from London——

Mr. Jennings: And from Birmingham.

Mr. Stewart: When we notice this we are bound to conclude that the right hon. Gentleman is influenced throughout more by political considerations than the good quality of local government.

Sir K. Joseph: The Government will have some further decisions to announce to the House on some other recommendations of the Local Government Commission before the end of the year. I take the hon. Member's point about giving as much time as possible for the House to study any Orders which are made. As to Rutland, each case must be decided on its merits, and I think that the House will find the reasons for the Government's decision amply explained in the statement which I have made.

Sir Hamilton Kerr: While recognising the very great difficulty involved in the Cambridgeshire boundaries, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that this decision will be greeted with most grievous disappointment in Cambridge City, particularly as the Boundary Commission has entirely reversed its past findings, and that the public of Cambridge will not allow this decision to remain final?

Sir K. Joseph: I share my hon. Friend's regrets that it is not possible to treat the problem of Cambridge City in isolation, but I do not think that public opinion should allow itself to think that the difficulties which stand in the way of creating Cambridge as a county borough will be easily removed.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the Minister not think that his special treatment of Rutland will be looked on in the country as


a blatant attempt on his part to appease the revolting Tories of Rutland? Is not that the reason that he has given this specially favourable treatment to Rutland? Has he noted the remarks of the Local Government Commission that if he acceded to the demands made by Rutland to remain a separate entity this would have far-reaching implications for the reorganisation of local government generally, and that there are many other local authorities in other review areas which will ask for this special treatment which has been given to Rutland?
Is this the only answer which he intends to give to the very closely reasoned argument which the Local Government Commission put about about the amalgamation of Rutland with Leicester, covering no fewer than 21 pages of its report, in which it concluded quite unequivocally that adequate social services could not be provided in a unit as small as 25,000 population?

Sir K. Joseph: I repeat that each case must be decided on its merits. I do not believe that the unique situation of Rutland, and the fact that the amalgamation of Rutland with Leicester would not have strengthened Leicester, will prevent either the Government, at a later stage, or the counties, in the important part which they have to play, from paying due attention to the need for providing effective as well as convenient local government.

Mr. Jennings: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his decision about Rutland—in which fight I have played a part—may I ask whether he is aware that there is considerable disappointment about his decision on Burton upon Trent? Presumably Rutland has special qualifications as a small unit, but is he aware that Burton is a small unit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Small beer."]—but is not small beer? There is a suggestion or a suspicion that the criterion used in deciding the fate of Burton has been an arbitrary, mathematical, and statistical one. While my right hon. Friend says that the main basis of the decision is that Burton lacks scope and resources, it seems to me that efficiency has not been the keynote here.
May I, finally, ask him whether he is aware that in a modern progressive

Tory democracy there must be room for the small man and the small unit?

Sir K. Joseph: I admire the sturdy sense of independence shown by my hon. Friend throughout all these processes, but no one, least of all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, should underestimate the invidious nature of these decisions which the Government have to make. Right hon. Members and hon. Members opposite flinch from any decision, or even from honesty, which may bring them the least unpopularity. The answer is that, unlike the case of Rutland, the Government believe that joining Burton to Staffordshire will strengthen both local government units.

Mr. K. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very glad that I shall now have to find a new theme for my Questions and supplementary questions and that I am not troubled in any way, as suggested by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), about my majority, since it was doubled last time, or about the attitude of the Liberal Party on this matter, which will be noted.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be more joy this week-end in Rutland over one Minister who has relented than over the 90 or nine local government commissioners who have been saved from the folly of the unhappy proposals which they had put forward for Rutland?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a motto on the coat of arms of the County of Rutland, Multum in Parvo? Today sees the survival of a small unit at a time when perhaps bigness gets the headlines and takes the running—and not all of it necessarily the best. This small unit which has survived is an indication that the Tory Party, in its policy, is prepared to accept that although we intend to have the "must" of the modern, we hope to preserve the best of the past.
May I pay tribute to the work of all the people in the county who have backed their own campaign and say that I am grateful that I have had the opportunity to carry the flag in a small way in the House?

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot allow the work of the Local Government Commission to


be indicted as folly because of the fact that, in looking at the larger picture, the Government came to a different decision on this one recommendation only. I am glad that out of this announcement some joy has been revealed somewhere.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I think that the House will realise that the county of my constituency will suffer more than any other from these recommendations, because it will lose its identity altogether. While I very much appreciate the complexity of the problem and the impossibility of arriving at a decision which everybody will think fair, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will recognise that the disappearance of an authority which has been a separate authority of some sort for 1,290 years is not likely to encourage my constituents to support a Member who would seek to destroy it?
While I am most anxious to say nothing which will make it more difficult for those who have to administer whatever decision the House may later take when it comes to implement what Parliament has decided, I hope that my right hon. Friend understands—and I ask him to indicate that he does—that my constituents have a right to expect their Member to try to represent to the best of his ability what he believes to be in their interests, however difficult—and I fear that it is sometimes very difficult—it may be to determine what in the long-term really are their interests.

Sir K. Joseph: I should like to pay tribute to the vigorous, sustained and sturdy representations of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) over a long period both to my predecessor and to me on the interests of his constituents as he has seen them. I recognise the long, historic background of the Isle of Ely. My hon. Friend will recognise that all that is being

changed is the possession of the Isle of Ely of the status of an administrative county, which is a comparatively recent status. I hope to be able to persuade my hon. Friend that the Government's decision will strengthen the administration for the benefit of citizens of both Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, but I recognise that he must judge these arguments in the light of his own duty to his constituents as he sees it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have less Multum in Parvo.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will appreciate that there is now no opportunity for an hon. Member to raise a matter on the Adjournment additional to those selected by yourself for debate tomorrow. In view of the very great concern which this statement will cause in my constituency, if I were able to obtain the agreement of certain hon. Members whose Adjournment debates you have already selected for debate tomorrow, would you consider allowing me to raise this matter—if I can get other hon. Members who are to raise other matters to agree to allow me a few minutes?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member can get all the requisite consents and the presence of the Minister, I will consider the matter. More than that I cannot say, but it must not be at the expense of others unless they consent to be expended.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

NORTHERN IRELAND

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The debate on Northern Ireland, which it was hoped to begin at half-past three, is starting 50 minutes late. I wonder whether it would be possible to come to some arrangement to extend the time of the debate by, perhaps, half an hour, or an hour, by extending the sitting of the House this evening. Would the Leader of the House care to intervene on this matter?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I do not think that I can help my hon. Friend on that. Of course, in the normal course on a Thursday, when we have the business statement and, very frequently, one or more statements, it is not usual to come on to the ordinary business of the day until about a quarter-past four. If I can be helpful as regards the time of switching from one of the two subjects to the other, I shall, of course, do so, but I think that the best thing would be to proceed with the debate.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Are we exactly tied to seven o'clock for moving on to the next debate, or is it possible to go on for, say, another half-hour?

Mr. Macleod: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "No". We are not tied to a precise amount of time, but, of course, it is a matter for the Chair, not for me.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter for mutual accommodation, in the circumstances.

Mr. Tom Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since there is not the usual business statement today, may I ask the Leader of the House a question about business on the day we return from the Recess? It is simply this. In view of the state of the Order Paper, which shows that the Home Secretary is not answering questions orally for well over four months at a time, would the Leader of the House consider tomorrow morning moving a further small Amendment to the Motion which he has already had amended once, and which was carried by the House earlier this week, to provide for Oral Questions for one hour when we return at eleven o'clock on 24th October?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. With respect, that would be entirely against our custom.

Mr. Driberg: No; there are precedents.

Mr. Macleod: There may be precedents, but it is against the ordinary custom that we have. Written Answers to Questions on the day we return are admissible.

4.22 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I was about to make the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) made, that we are 50 minutes late in starting the debate on Northern Ireland. We should not expect for a moment that the whole of the 50 minutes would be compensated for by those right hon. and hon. Members who wish to talk about accommodation, but I am sure that, if we do happen to trespass a little beyond the agreed time of seven o'clock, there will be understanding on both sides.
It has been a matter of considerable satisfaction to those of us who represent Northern Ireland that it is now recognised by the Leader of the House and the Government that we should have a one-day debate during the Session on Northern Ireland affairs. It has been suggested that it is, perhaps, unfair to have a day devoted to Wales and a day devoted to Northern Ireland when there are not special days allocated to the north-east of England, Merseyside and other areas which may feel that they require special consideration. I cannot speak for Wales, but I think that there is a special reason why this should be so in the case of Northern Ireland.
By the Act of 1920, under which the House handed over to the Parliament of Northern Ireland powers over a very considerable field of administration, Northern Ireland Members in this House were automatically excluded from raising matters within the competence of that Parliament. Therefore, in this very considerable field, covering not only law and order, the police force and so on, but the whole range of public expenditure of education, transport, housing, roads and all local government expenditure, it is not possible for Northern Ireland Members in this House daily to question any Ministers.
Nevertheless, this Parliament reserved to itself overall powers of general taxation and control of the general level of expenditure, with the consequence that, although the powers of the Government of Northern Ireland are very wide, they operate within limits determined by this House of Commons. It is right, therefore, that we should, at least once a Session, debate the broad general effect of the policies of the Government upon Northern Ireland in particular. We have thought it best—we agree with the Leader of the House on this—that our day's debate should be divided in two. The one upon which we are now embarking is the second half, the first half having been taken earlier in the Session on 22nd Novemeber.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to two changes which have taken place since our last debate. The first is a sad one. We, the Ulster Members, have lost our chairman and leader in the person of Sir David Campbell, who died since our last debate. Sir David was very greatly respected on both sides and very greatly loved. I am sure that there is no one in the House who would dissent from that. We miss him particularly today, and it is right that our debate should start with a tribute to his memory.
There has been a change in Northern Ireland in that Lord Brookeborough, our very great and distinguished Prime Minister for many years, has, as a result of a serious operation, had to retire from the office of Prime Minister. It is right, at the outset of the debate, to pay tribute to his very considerable services to Northern Ireland. His place has been taken by Captain Terence O'Neill, who combines two qualities, a long and valuable experience of Government in Northern Ireland, notably as Minister of Finance, and the great advantage of youth. He has reorganised the Northern Ireland Cabinet, and the picture there now is of a youthful and energetic Administration which, we hope, will receive the full co-operation of Her Majesty's Ministers here in any new imaginative proposals which they may have to put before us.
Before we enter upon the main subject of the debate, our economic problem, I wish to make one general political point. Since the Act of Union of 1801,

Northern Ireland has been an integral part of the United Kingdom. During that long period, there has been a very unhappy history of bloodshed, violence and enmity between our people and the people who live in what is now the Irish Republic. In a debate like this, it is not proper to go into that history or apportion any blame, but I draw attention to the fact that there has recently been at least a change of language in Dublin. We in Northern Ireland welcome this change of language. Mr. Lemass, the Prime Minister of the Republic, made a speech at the beginning of this week which, although it did not say anything new or offer any new proposal, was couched in language which showed some change of spirit. We warmly welcome this.
Our attitude in Northern Ireland has always been that we are more than willing to enter into any agreement or arrangement with our neighbours in the Irish Republic which would be for the welfare, safety and prosperity of all the people, North and South, with only one proviso, that no arrangement entered into should ever tend to weaken our position as an integral part of the United Kingdom. Subject only to that, we are more than ready to enter into any arrangements which would be to the benefit of both our peoples.
The main subject of this debate is Northern Ireland's economic affairs. It is natural that in this those of us who represent Northern Ireland, and, no doubt, hon. Members opposite, will be drawing attention to the weak points in our economy, to the things which we think ought to be improved. I hope, however, that in doing so we shall not paint a picture of our province as a down-and-out, down-at-heel, derelict part of the United Kingdom, because that would be a great disservice to us.
We are trying now to attract new investment capital and it is vitally important that in anything we say we bear in mind the fact that we should not paint such a gloomy picture of our part of the United Kingdom—because it is not true, anyway. Northern Ireland is a bustling, thriving, go-ahead part of the United Kingdom. After all, during the past year 15,000 new motor cars have been bought there. That is no indication


of a derelict and down-and-out community.
Subject to that, however, we shall have to draw attention to the weaknesses in our economy, the continuing weaknesses, and the black spot is, and always has been, unemployment, and this House has known about that for a very long time.
I want now to give a brief survey. I shall be as brief as I can, but I think that it would be helpful if I described the present position. There has been no great change in the unemployment position during the last year. The last debate took place in November, and shortly after that—it was, indeed, beginning to be apparent in November—the unemployment figures for the United Kingdom as a whole started to rise fairly rapidly. The curious thing is that in the late autumn and early winter the Northern Ireland unemployment figures were somewhat better than for the year before. In fact, they showed a distinct improvement on 1961.
However, the severe weather in January and February produced a disturbing result. Our unemployment figure rose sharply to a peak of 54,600, or 11.2 per cent. of our insured population, a very serious percentage. Since then, I am happy to say, the figure has steadily declined. Nevertheless, in June this year—this is the latest figures that we have—the Northern Ireland unemployment figure stood at 36,400, or 7.5 per cent of the insured population, which by any standard is very much too high. The disturbing thing about this figure is that it does not show any improvement and is, in fact, rather fractionally worse than a year ago.
On the employment side, between September, 1961, and September, 1962, the number in employment rose from 447,300 to 455,600—a rise of about 8,000. There has been a decline in the number of people in employment since then due to the redundancy in the shipyards, but I am happy to say that the number actually in employment is now rising again. Thus, we get a picture that we have had for a long time in Ulster, which is of a steady rise in the number of persons employed and yet a static state in the number of unemployed. We are again back to the old position of

the Red Queen running mightly hard to stay in the same position.
There is, however, an interesting change in the actual structure of employment there about which the House ought to know. Since September, 1960—I select 1960 because that was the peak employment year—there has been a considerable change in the actual pattern of those employed. In shipbuilding, for example, the labour force has fallen by no fewer than 10,000, in textiles it is down by 7,000 and in agriculture the slow and steady decline which we have seen ever since the war still goes on and the number employed in the industry has fallen by some 2,000. On the other hand, we have seen a rise in the labour force in other industries. In the construction industries employment is up by 2,000, in other manufacturing industries by 4,000 and in distribution and services by 10,000.
I think that it might be useful if we were to look at the three traditional industries, still, our greatest industries, in Northern Ireland in which this decline has taken place—shipbuilding, textiles and agriculture. In shipbuilding, as I said, the labour force has declined by some 10,000 persons. This has caused us very great anxiety. But for this, the efforts of the Northern Ireland Government in producing new employment would dramatically have improved the employment position. But there has been this fall.
Employment now in the shipyards—Harland and Wolff's shipyard, still the greatest single shipyard in the world, employs about 11,000 people—has been fairly stable in recent months, and we have heard with satisfaction of new orders from time to time. But the outlook is still very uncertain and very difficult. We welcome the recent Government announcement about the building of an aircraft carrier. Naturally, we would hope that it would be built at Harland and Wolff's, but, even if it is not, we recognise that the provision of £60 million worth of work must have a profound effect on shipbuilding generally which is bound to be reflected in more work for Harland and Wolff.
I do not want to say any more about the industry. My hon. Friends from Belfast, who take, naturally, a very keen


interest in it, will develop the problems of the industry in due course.
However, there is one subject which is allied to it—the dry dock for Belfast harbour. This has been discussed in the House for a long time. I remember the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and myself having discussions about it long ago, and I remember the subject arising in the debate in1958, when we discussed its pros and cons. The Northern Ireland Government, I understand, have put up a scheme to Ministers here for consideration, and we very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have something constructive to say about the subject when he winds up the debate. Again, I leave it to my hon. Friends from Belfast to develop the arguments—which are strong and potent—in favour of this project, and I very much hope that the Government will not turn down any suggestions that are made out of hand.
I want to mention, in passing, the aircraft industry. Although it is not one of our traditional activities, it is, nevertheless, very important to us and is, to some extent, concerned in these problems. The present position in Short Brothers and Harland is such that employment at present is reasonably stable, but there is considerable concern about the future. There is particular concern about the future of the design and research staff.
We were disturbed to be told by representatives of the firm that signs were beginning to appear that the depletion of the design staff was beginning at the top and at the best level in such a way as might endanger the contracts which the company has in hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has taken a very keen interest in this subject and no doubt he will develop it in more detail later. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have something to say in reply about the future of this important company.
Our other great industry—the greatest single industry in Northern Ireland—is agriculture. I do not propose to say very much about it in introducing this debate, because my hon. Friends who represent country areas, if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will no doubt deal with the subject fully. We are, as it were, a nation of small

farmers. We have a thriving agricultural industry, but we have had a very bad winter.
There is some disquiet about the future provision of fodder following the winter and the unsatisfactory hay harvest. Our beef producers have been pleased by the indications of a change in policy by the Government on the control of foreign imports, but, again, I will leave the main arguments on this subject to my hon. Friends.
I want to talk, in particular, about the textile industry, which is one of our great traditional industries and is enormously important to the provision of employment. The decline in the labour force in the textile industry has been 7,000, and that is serious. Overall, output has been reasonably well maintained but there are certain conclusions which are deeply disturbing and certain ways in which the Government can direct help. I hope that, although these problems are not directly within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, he will, nevertheless, draw the attention of the Board of Trade and the Treasury to them.
The first one is that it is very surprising, considering that this is an industry which provides important employment in an area which badly needs it, that the Purchase Tax on its products should have been raised. Yet that is so. The Purchase Tax on hanker chiefs has recently been raised. It is not perhaps realised that this increase applies to all kinds of hankerchiefs, cotton as well as linen, since practically all cotton handkerchiefs, whether started in Lancashire or not, are finished in Northern Ireland and provide a very important and traditional source of employment.
I do not want to argue the whole case for the removal or reduction of Purchase Tax on handkerchiefs. I did so at some length in the recent textile debate. I ask my right hon. Friend to be good enough to look again at what I said then and draw the attention of the Treasury to the fact that we would take it very ill indeed in Northern Ireland if, in the next round of Purchase Tax reductions, handkerchiefs were not included. It would lead to very great resentment indeed, and we confidently expect that they will be included.
The textile industry is greatly concerned about the level of imports, particularly the linen section. The central council of the linen section has asked specifically for protective action against certain linen imports from Eastern Europe, particularly tea towels and towelling. There has been a substantial increase of imports from Eastern Europe and the linen section has asked for three things. First, the imposition of anti-dumping duties under the 1957 Act; secondly, that the increase in the quotas of these countries should be halted; thirdly, that the quotas should be based upon yardage rather than upon value, which would be a fairer and more equitable way of determining them.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is prepared to look at the anti-dumping problem when he gets further information and that the Northern Ireland Ministry of Commerce is supporting the linen section and takes the same view on the desirability of some limitation of these exports. We understand that the broad general policy of the Government must be such as to balance these things, but these imports are having a very harsh effect upon the linen section of the textile industry, and we hope that the Government will look at it.
I hope that the Government will look very closely indeed at one section of the textile industry which is suffering very severely. I refer to the shirt makers. The Northern Ireland shirt making industry provides employment for no fewer than 6,000 workers in Londonderry, which is a very important area for employment because it is one where there is very little overall. This is an old industry and is extremely important to that part of the Kingdom.
It is suffering very heavily from the import of shirts from Hong Kong. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) has, naturally taken a great interest in the matter and took a deputation to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, representing the Shirt Manufacturers' Federation.
The deputation put three points to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. First, the quality of these imports has been steadily rising to the point where

they are competing in the medium-range of shirts; secondly, the imports are very little more expensive than the cloth which the shirt-makers have to import to make shirts; thirdly, the present voluntary quota system for Hong Kong provides for no specific ceiling for shirts in particular.
Again, we understand the necessity for encouraging Commonwealth trade, and so forth, and for balancing the interests of the Commonwealth against those of our own industries, but there is a feeling, and I share it, that we should not allow a valuable industry of great importance in an area of unemployment to go completely by the board because of those interests. In Londonderry, there is a feeling that the balance is not being held quite fairly.

Mr. John McCann: There is a similar feeling in Lancashire.

Captain Orr: Yes. As I said in the debate on the textile industry, I fully share Lancashire's feelings on this matter. There is undoubtedly a feeling that it would be wrong to sacrifice an important industry in an area where employment is required entirely to these considerations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pass these comments to the Board of Trade.
While on the subject of imports and the Board of Trade, I should like to mention an industry in my own constituency, Mourne and Newry granite industries. This is a very old industry which is very important because it provides employment in an area where it is needed. In due course I shall develop arguments in favour of some sort of control for the imports of granite, perhaps in a letter to the President of the Board of Trade, but I can now say that the imports of granite from India and South Africa, surprisingly enough, have been steadily rising.
I never knew that there was any such thing as an import of granite, but I got the figures from the President of the Board of Trade the other day. During the last ten years, imports of granite from India have risen from a little over £5,000 to £133,000 and from South Africa from £1,600 to £74,000. I do not know how this has come about, but I would be grateful if the Board of Trade would look at this matter, because I have had


considerable complaint from our own granite industry about it.
I have dealt with certain of our older industries and it is vitally important that when employment in the older traditional industries looks like declining, we should do everything in our power to arrest the decline and encourage these industries to keep going. None the less, the crux of the Northern Ireland problem, as the House well knows, is that we need to attract more and new industries and to expand the existing industries. This is the essence of the problem. Enormous strides have been made in recent years. One has only to think of what might happen if the present policies of both Governments had not been followed, of the catastrophic state of employment which there might be in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland really would be derelict and down and out but for what has already been done.
Let me summarise the position. On 31st March, 1963, in new and expanded industries, that is, industries assisted by Government finance, 51,000 persons were employed of whom 31,000 were men. New firms introduced under the various schemes number 192. It is curious that in the last three or four years there has been a considerable increase in that in 1962 announcements were made which promised 6,000 new jobs, in 1961, a record year, there were projects which promised 8,600 new jobs and in 1960 some 4,000. In the years before that, the average was about 2,000. There has been a dramatic improvement in the industrial development programme in the last three or four years.
The trouble is that this trend seems to have halted and this year the rate of new development has slowed down. This is causing some anxiety. The present year is difficult. We do not know quite whether it is due to the uncertainties about the Common Market or something else, but there has been a slowing down of private investment in Northern Ireland, although public investment has gone on. However, in the last fortnight or three weeks there has been some sign of an upturn again which has given us some comfort.
For example, in the last fortnight there has been the starting of a new bacon factory at Enniskillen and the renting of a Government factory at Newtonards

by Johnson and Phillips which will employ about 250 people. But the particular source of satisfaction is the announcement of the new cigarette factory for Carreras which over the next five years will employ about 2,000 people.
But the industrial development situation is not satisfactory and I hope that the House will face it realistically. Clearly, something further has to be done if we are to maintain the status quo of employment and to reduce the unemployment figures. It is clear that both Governments need to redouble their efforts. Between them they have done tremendously good work, but something new is needed. The Board of Trade has been enormously helpful in steering industries to Northern Ireland and in pointing out that Northern Ireland is one of the areas to which industrialists might go.
However, I feel that Northern Ireland ought to have priority. I should not like to offend my hon. Friends from other parts of the United Kingdom, from Scotland, the North-East or Merseyside, but for the next two or three years the Board of Trade might devise a method for giving Northern Ireland priority. There is a genuine need to try to prime our pump.
This would be in the national interest and not only in the interests of Ireland. The National Economic Development Council has pointed out that to achieve a 4 per cent. growth rate it would be wise for the Government to use their powers to see that the national resources are fully used in those areas where they are not now fully used. This plea which we made for an extra effort by the Government would not be only in our own interests.
At the end of our last debate, my right hon. Friend said that the Hall Committee, whose Report we have just had, would not be the last word and that the Government would continue to find ways of improving the position. I have suggested a few and I am sure that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will suggest others. I hope that, in co-operation with the new and energetic Administration at Stormont, the Government will see that the efforts of both Governments are redoubled and that the search for new ideas and new approaches to solve this problem will continue with full force so that Northern Ireland can


play a full part not only in her own development, but in the development of the whole nation's production and resources and may as a result enjoy the full benefits of an expanding economy.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I should like to deal in detail with three points. The first has already been mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), the question of Messrs. Harland and Wolff, Ltd., which has been building ships in Belfast for a great many years.
Belfast has been renowned as a shipbuilding town for several generations, shipbuilding having been commenced there about two centuries ago. We have a large modern dockyard on which many millions of £s have been spent over the last four years. This programme of modernisation has been carried out to enable the dockyard to compete with any other in the world, and sheds have been erected so that the most modern methods of prefabrication can be used in the construction of vessels.
We have five dry docks, the oldest of which, the Clarendon Dock, has been there for over 160 years, having been laid down in 1800. Three of the others were also laid down in the last century and the most modern of our docks, the Thompson Dock, was constructed in 1911. This is a fine dock, capable of taking vessels of up to 45,000 tons dead weight, that is, 30,000 tons gross. It was a tremendous act of faith and foresight in 1911 to build a dock of such proportions.
Since the end of the last war, it has become obvious that there is a need for a new large dry dock in Belfast. Over the past few years orders for repair and refitting have had to be turned away from Belfast because the existing docks were too small or were engaged in other work. One of the main reasons for wanting this new dry dock is to provide employment in Northern Ireland. The shipbuilding yard is the largest employer of labour in the whole of Northern Ireland, and, what is much more important, the great proportion of that labour is male labour.
To ensure that the present unemployment situation is not made any worse as

the result of the depression in shipping and shipbuilding, it is essential that Messrs. Harland and Wolff diversify their activities. Until recently the firm has been content to concentrate on shipbuilding, and has built up a tremendous name for itself throughout the world, particularly for the construction of passenger liners. But orders for passenger liners are infrequent and are hard to win, and the directors of the company have decided that to maintain the work force in Belfast it will be necessary to do much more refitting and repair work during the years of depression in shipbuilding.
For those reasons, the construction of a dry dock, which has been debated before in this House and which I have mentioned on several occasions since I came to this House about five years ago, has become much more vital than it was in the past. The number of large tankers being built in the world has increased dramatically. There are now 113 tankers throughout the world which are too large to be dry docked in Belfast. Of this number, 26 are owned by United Kingdom owners. None of these vessels can be dry-docked in Belfast, so they cannot be refitted and repaired there.
The trend towards building large vessels is apparent if one looks at Lloyds Register of Shipping. It shows that at the end of last year 178 tankers of more than 45,000 tons deadweight were on order. This means that two-thirds of the tankers being built in the world were large tankers, and a similar figure applies in relation to orders which have been placed in the United Kingdom. Of the 29 tankers ordered during the second quarter of 1963, 23 were for tankers of more than 45,000 tons. If this country is to remain a major shipbuilding and ship-repairing nation, it is essential that we have adequate dry dock facilities not only to build these tankers but to accommodate them when they come in for inspection.
It is calculated that more than 200 vessels now on order throughout the world will be too big for the existing facilities in Belfast. I referred earlier to the modernisation of the shipbuilding yard in Belfast. Until three years ago 18 slipways were used to capacity. As a result of the depression, a number of these slipways have been dismantled, and


the rest have been modernised. Of those which have been modernised, six are capable of being used for the construction of ships which are too large to be berthed in Belfast, and this makes it all the more difficult for Northern Ireland to win orders for large passenger, tanker, and tramp vessels of the type that are being ordered today.
It is estimated that it would cost about £5 million to build this new dry dock. The harbour commissioners have spent a similar sum on modernising dock facilities in Belfast, and this has added 20 per cent. to the harbour dues. It is impossible for the harbour commissioners, who are responsible for constructing a dry dock, to pay for it even thought it is a vital necessity.
As I said earlier, Messrs. Harland and Wolff have spent a large sum of money on modernisation, and it is a necessary counterpart of this modernisation scheme that we should have a large dry dock to go with these new and modern slip-ways. The site is available, and I am told that little additional dredging would be necessary because of the harbour improvement scheme which has recently been carried out by the Harbour Commissioners. In fact, if we had the foresight today that we had in 1911, when the Thompson Dock was laid down, we would lay down a dry dock capable of taking vessels of up to 150,000 tons. In this way Britain could maintain her lead as a major shipbuilding country and Messrs. Harland and Wolff could maintain the proud position which the company has of being the largest single shipbuilding yard in the United Kingdom, and indeed in the world.
Such a project would greatly assist the unemployment problem. Many new industries, some at considerable expense, have been started in Northern Ireland. In recent years Standard Telephones, Michelin Tyres and British Enkalon have all established plants in Northern Ireland. We are all extremely grateful for the money which has been spent, and the assistance which has been given in starting these plants, but it must be realised that these plants, being modern and automated, employ only about 2,000 men each whereas three years ago Messrs. Harland and Wolff were employing more than 20,000 men. That figure has dropped to about 11,000, but this firm is still the

major employer of men in the area, and therefore the expenditure of several million £s by Messrs. Harland and Wolff would have a much more important effect than if it were spent in any other way.
The case for the construction of this dry dock has been supported by all parties. It was debated in Stormont on 28th March this year, and a Motion was approved by all parties.
Mention has already been made and Questions have been asked this week by myself and other of my hon. Friends on the aircraft carrier programme. The Minister of Defence has announced that a new large aircraft carrier is to be ordered, and that this will be tendered for by all the ship builders in Britain. I would point out that many aircraft carriers in the past have been built in Belfast and that we have a very fine naval building record. I should like to put a plea to my right hon. Friend that this aircraft carrier order should go to Northern Ireland. In fact, within the last few months two special missile carrying frigates have been completed in Belfast, and we have a tradition of naval building which is represented in all classes of vessels sailing in Her Majesty's Navy today.
Here, again, we need a new large dry dock so that we can build such vessels. It would be inconceivable, if we are to have a new generation of aircraft carriers, that none of them should be built in Belfast because, though we could build them, without a dry dock we could not finish them in Northern Ireland.
I could say a great deal more about Harland and Wolff but, because of the lateness in starting the debate and the number of my hon. Friends whom I know wish to take part in it, I shall keep my remarks short, as I am sure that other hon. Members will.
I should like to say a few words about another large industry which lies in my constituency, and that is the aircraft factory of Short Bros, and Harland. It has been debated frequently in the House over the past few years, and the situation in Short Bros, and Harland is causing great concern in Northern Ireland. I am particularly pleased to see on the Front Bench my hon. Friend from the Ministry of Aviation, and I hope that he will pay particular attention to this plea. In the


Financial Times today there is an important article on the main news page dealing with the concern felt for the future of Shorts. I shall not waste the time of the House by going over it in detail, but I should like to refer to the main points about which we are all concerned in Northern Ireland.
In Short Bros, and Harland we have built up a very fine design team. It is the future of that design team which is causing us the gravest concern. I might mention a Report which has been published very recently by the Feilden Committee. This was on engineering design and Short Bros, and Harland submitted evidence to the Committee. One of the main recommendations by the Committee, in page 2, paragraph 10, is that the Government should use development contracts to encourage the creation of design teams of high quality. This is one of the conclusions of the Committee, and it is dealt with at greater length in paragraph 153 of its Report.
Short Bros, and Harland have not been in any way backward in setting up such a design team. They do some of the most complex and advanced design work in Northern Ireland and have played a very big part in helping the technical education of the youth of Belfast. A Chair has been set up at Queen's University, due very largely to the work of Short Bros, and Harland, and much work has been done through the technical colleges. Unless this design team can be kept fully occupied, there is the danger that many of those engaged in it will leave Northern Ireland, and this would threaten the future of the aircraft industry in Northern Ireland. This, like shipbuilding, is an ideal industry for Northern Ireland. The manpower is available and very little raw material of the highest quality has to be imported, so the transport costs are minimal. The transport costs, which is one of our obstacles to industrial development in Northern Ireland, plays a very small part in relation to these projects, and for this reason and because a large amount of skilled labour is being employed that it is a most suitable industry for Northern Ireland.
At the moment it is engaged in producing ten Belfast aircraft. We have never been able to understand why an

order for ten of these aircraft should be placed. We read in the newspapers every day of increasing tension particularly in the Far East. We read of the Chinese build-up on the Indian border. We think of our commitments in India, Malaysia and the Far East, and we wonder, in view of the threat that there has been over the past year, even of actual aggression in India, how we could fulfil our commitments and get our Forces out there in time.
An order has been given for a new freighter aircraft which is to be known, I believe, as the WG681. These aircraft will not be in service, until the 1970s. The aircraft carrier which I have mentioned might be used for the same purpose, to reinforce our Forces in the Far East, but it cannot be sailing and fulfilling its function until the 1970s. We are at the moment, it appears, and will be for the next five, six or seven years, virtually unable to reinforce our Forces in the far corners of the world and carry the numbers of men and the type of equipment they need without new large transport aircraft.

Mr. Douglas Jay: When the hon. Member said that orders for ten Belfasts had been placed, I think that he meant that he was surprised that an order for only ten was placed. He might have been misunderstood.

Mr. McMaster: I thought that I made my meaning quite clear by my following remarks. Ten is an inadequate number. Allowing for the fact that two of these aircraft are to be used for development purposes, that leaves only eight for our Forces. If we intend to spread the entire development cost of these aircraft over ten, it makes the expense ridiculous. Irrespective of that, the need of our Forces is for far more than ten, and an order for twenty, which could be produced within the next two or three years, would give plenty of work in Belfast. These aircraft are very much larger than the WG 681 which has a hold of only 9 ft. by 9 ft. whereas the Belfast has a 12 ft. square fuselage, big enough to take a Chieftain tank. This aircraft, with a new engine and a 20 ft propeller instead of the existing one which is 16 or 18 ft., would be quite capable of


enabling our Forces to fulfil their commitments throughout the world. It seems very illogical and unwise in the light of our new defence programme to say that ten Belfasts are adequate, and that this plane is not capable of development. The first will fly before the end of this year, and I am sure that it will be a great success.
I should like to mention briefly another type of work which has been going on in Belfast. Short Brothers and Harland pioneered the vertical take-off project which has been very much in the news lately. They produced the SC1—the first multiple-jet vertical take-off aircraft in the world. The Government decided that a new fighter should be developed for use both on land and at sea, based on the different scheme—the Hawker scheme of vectored thrust. Experience of the Paris Air Show has indicated that the French Balzac, which incorporates Short Brothers scheme has great virtue, and that for a heavier aircraft, such as a transport aircraft, it would be ideal. I suggest that an order should be given straight away, or a feasibility study made with a view to incorporating the Short Brothers scheme in a British aircraft.
I do not suggest that the Hawker 1154 aircraft is not entirely suitable for its job, but heavier transports which must have short or vertical take-off capacity should be powered by multi-jet Rolls-Royce engines, which have now been developed so that they have a fantastic lift capacity—a capacity of lifting sixteen times their own weight. A feasibility study should be made to enable the technical know-how of the Short Brothers scheme to be used to the benefit of the country generally and our Armed Services in particular.
I am not in any way criticising the Hawker scheme. In fact, it might be wise to develop both schemes together. It is possible to incorporate both vectored thrust and vertical take-off engine pods together in the same aircraft. This might be a possible way of achieving the end we desire, which is for a small transport aircraft capable of vertical take-off. I suggest that consideration should be given immediately to the possibility of placing an order for the purchase of existing aircraft such as the Breguet 941, which many hon. Members went to see demon-

strated at Northolt recently. It is a French aircraft with surprisingly short take-off features.
Such an aircraft could be purchased and fitted with pods by Short Brothers. The cost of this would be less than £1 million and the technical know-how and advantages gained would be inestimable. It could be the forerunner to the scheme which the Government have announced and in respect of which there have been recent questions in the House, concerning the possibility of adapting vertical take-off to the WG681 when it is in production later in this decade or at the beginning of the next. But we must get on with the job straight away or we shall lose our lead in the world, and also possible export orders, to our competitors in France, Germany and the United States.
I must mention missiles. Short Brothers have produced the most successful British missile—the Seacat—which is being exported to six foreign countries. Two or three other countries have shown an interest in it and might place orders for it. But unless the missile design team can be kept together in Short Brothers it may not be possible to fulfil all those orders. In that event the loss to this country of valuable exports, can hardly be over-stated. If it were possible to place some of the development orders that I have suggested for vertical take-off, I believe that we could use the same design team for both tasks, because the same missile design team did a lot of the original work on the SC1. In this way Short Brothers could maintain its production of missiles and consolidate its knowledge of vertical take-off. This could not fail to be for the benefit of the whole country.
Other Members representing Belfast constituencies will want to deal with other aspects of the problem of Short Brothers, especially in relation to maritime reconnaisance aircraft. I will leave that subject there and conclude by saying that I support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South said in opening. Northern Ireland has taken on a new look in the past six months. The new Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Captain Terence O'Neill has been very energetic in emphasising that Northern Ireland must rely to a great extent upon self-help. That is a point of view that all my colleagues representing Northern


Ireland constituencies will support. This was mentioned particularly in the Hall Report of last year. We cannot pull ourselves up entirely by our own boot strings. We have made great strides in the past five years in reducing unemployment, but the unemployment rate still remains at over 7 per cent., and it was as high as 11½ per cent. only three months ago.
We appreciate the help that has been given by the British Government. I know from my own experience that the Board of Trade and the Treasury have taken many measures to help us find new industries for Northern Ireland, and so to prevent unemployment from becoming a much more serious problem. I must also pay tribute to the Northern Ireland Government. It is part of our duty in this House to try to collaborate with the Northern Ireland Government in any proposals we make to Her Majesty's Government. I want to express a special word of praise for the liaison which exists between the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, the Home Secretary and other Ministers here, and for the way in which they deal with the points which are raised. There have, perforce, to be many private conversations, because in this House Northern Ireland debates are infrequent. I take this opportunity of saying how much I appreciate the attention and care which is given on both sides—by the Northern Ireland Government and Her Majesty's Government—to the problems that I have mentioned.
Because of the offices which they hold, some of my colleagues who represent Northern Ireland constituencies cannot speak in this debate, especially my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), but I know that much has been done in the past five years to assist Northern Ireland through their pens, which are always busy and are always working very hard for their constituents in Northern Ireland. They make their points strongly and firmly to the Government.
Our aim must be to further a strong and united kingdom. That is the meaning of the United Kingdom. It must be a prosperous kingdom. We must strive to increase its capital wealth and to take full advantage of the technical advances which

have been mentioned in the recent Feilden Report, among others. We must make much more use of our capital assets, our brains, and particularly our manpower resources.
Earlier, during Question time today, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred to the shortage of manpower as being a limiting factor in road construction. There is no shortage of manpower in Northern Ireland. It must be the ambition of this Government and this House to improve the standard of living throughout the Kingdom—and that includes Northern Ireland—besides improving our hospitals, schools and welfare services. The key to this lies in positive Government action. The Government must take courageous and ambitious action. I have mentioned two ambitious schemes today—the dry dock scheme and the vertical take-off project. We must look far into the future, and we must rely on the vigour, industry and the unquestioned loyalty of the people of Ulster.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I agree with the remedies offered by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) regarding the manufacturing side of industry in Belfast. I think that the hon. Gentleman was right to draw our attention to the problems in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries, because, no matter how we look at the position in Northern Ireland, it is still the case that manufactures bring in exports amounting to £249½ million of the total of £334·3 million. Therefore, unless we can have a continued boost in manufactured goods there will be no solution to the problem.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) described this debate as the second half of a debate which began on 22nd November, 1962, and I agree. I do not wish to repeat many of the things which I said to the House on that occasion. Nor do I wish to paint the gloomy picture which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked that we should not paint. I agree that there have been accomplishments. But, like the hon. and gallant Member, I must emphasise to the Government that the effort which has been made, although I do not seek to disguise its value, has


not produced the result that we all want to see.
The problem is that Northern Ireland is still the area of the United Kingdom with by far the highest rate of unemployment. I agree that this year there has been a reduction in the developments which we have seen in previous years. I think this is a reflection of Government policy last year when deflationary policies were in vogue. Now we see the result in the diminution of development which has been referred to. Those who take part in these debates have listened to the reports of what has been done and the efforts both by this Government and the Government of Northern Ireland. As I have said, it would be wrong to decry them. But we must face the fact that, despite those efforts, we are still faced with the great problems which we are discussing.
It would seem that the most successful export effort yet has been in human beings. Between 1951 and 1961 the natural increase in the population was 146,349. The actual increase was 54,500. There was a net migration of 91,800 people. But, despite that, we are still faced with a high level of unemployment. During the debate on 22nd November, I criticised the Hall Report, and said that it appeared to me to be an appeal for more migration and less wages. This despite the migration rate which I have described and a level of wages which was the lowest in the United Kingdom. We spoke then of the hopes which had been built up by the then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland about the Report which the Hall Committee would publish, and hon. Members will remember that he suggested:
The members of that Committee have the best brains we have here. If those brains cannot solve the problem, I do not know the remedy.
If Lord Brookeborough was right in so describing the members of the Hall Committee, it is a pretty dismal prospect, because the Report, when published, proved a terrible disappointment.
On present showing, it would appear that the Committee was right when it suggested that there would be no real improvement in the unemployment problem for a number of years. In November last year I suggested a link-up with the N.E.D.C. and representatives of Northern

Ireland in order that we could get a scientific regional analysis reinforced by the first-hand knowledge of people from Northern Ireland competent to offer suggestions. I ask the Home Secretary, what has happened since then? On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman told us about all the jobs in the pipeline. He made a point of that. But on the figures we have now, one can only assume that there must have been a huge gaping hole in that pipeline, because the things for which the right hon. Gentleman hoped have not happened. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said:
…as long as I hold my present position, I pledge myself to do everything in my power, working with the United Kingdom Government, to assist the Northern Ireland Government in solving these problems."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 1537.]
Let us have a look at the results which have been achieved. On 10th June of this year, the unemployment figure for Great Britain as a whole was 480,000, or 2·1 per cent. of all employees. For Northern Ireland the figure was 36,422, which is about 7½ per cent. Over 22,000 have been unemployed for more than eight weeks, and there is about 8·5 per cent. of the male population unemployed. This relates to midsummer when seasonal employment is at its height. We must anticipate that with the coming winter we may well again be in very serious trouble. The scope for increase in unemployment during the winter period, when seasonal unemployment begins to show, may be reckoned by the fact that the figure in January of this year was 45,948, or 9½ per cent., and in February it was 54,583, or 11·2 per cent. of the working population.
I concede at once that the weather last winter was exceptional. But it is also the case that if we consider 1962 as a whole the rate of unemployment was about 7·6 per cent. If we take that figure and then reckon the increased seasonal unemployment which is bound to come with the winter, I think that the figure cannot be less than 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. of the working population.
In the debate last November, I asked not for the first time, for a development corporation. I said to the Government:
…I put it to them that they should again examine the suggestion of a development corporation which could channel investment in the


right directions, which could examine research and that kind of thing which is so essential if we are to set up new industries…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 1468.]
The Hall Report had commented on the demand for a development corporation and economic council which had been made for years by the Northern Ireland Labour Party. The Committee said:
We do not think it either constitutionally appropriate or practically necessary to set up an autonomous body of either kind.
The Home Secretary went one better. As reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 22nd November, he said:
when hon. Members opposite talk about an economic planning council, either they mean direction of industry or they mean nothing at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 1541.]
I should like a straight answer from the right hon. Gentleman today. Is N.E.D.C. an economic planning council, or nothing at all? I should think that the members of the N.E.D.C. would be quite interested to hear the answer from a responsible member of the Government which set it up. I ask why Northern Ireland cannot be represented on the N.E.D.C., or have a comparable development of its own?
Since the debate in November we have had issued to us a pamphlet published by the Northern Ireland Economic Sub-Committee of the National Association of British Manufacturers. It is in many ways a remarkable document. I thought at first that it had been drawn up by members of the Northern Ireland Labour Party, until I came to some of the detail with which I do not agree. The writers of this document go miles further than the right hon. Gentleman or any member either of the Stormont Government or our own has ever gone. I shall quote one or two things from it which I think are vital to the success of our efforts in Northern Ireland. On page 2 they discuss human relations in industry and say:
No progress can be made in any individual factory or industry except there is co-operation between management and the unions representing the workers in that establishment. In viewing the Northern Ireland industrial scene overall it follows that if business and industry as a corporate group are to prosper there must be similar co-operation between management and unions at the national level. Some formula must be found to end the present impass between unions and government; the non-recognition of unions represents an absolute

bar to the co-operation which in our preceding paragraph we have said is a 'must'.
This is from the employers' organisation, not something produced by the trade unions. On more than one occasion I have got hot under the collar about the attitude of the Stormont Government on this matter. I am delighted to see that enlightened employers are putting the case so well. Whether hon. Members like it or not, there is no alternative to representation by responsible trade unions.

Captain Orr: There is no dispute about this, but what the employers are saying is that a way should be found out of the impasse. I have appealed to the hon. Member many times in this House to find a way out. The difficulty, as he knows, is that this is a committee which we would be perfectly happy to welcome, and the Northern Ireland Government would be perfectly happy to recognise and co-operate with, if it represented a T.U.C. of its own or a British trade union, but it represents a trade union organisation in another country.

Mr. Lee: I do not accept that this is an insurmountable barrier. Those who have written this pamphlet are as conscious of the problem from the employers' side as is the hon. and gallant Member. Responsible trade union leaders over there, whom I know very well, are equally conscious of the problem. Neither side, neither the trade unions nor the employers, are saying that we cannot get over this problem, given the possibility that the Northern Ireland Government want a settlement of it. I see no reason why we should not get co-operation to do this.
To quote again from this remarkable document, which I read with great pleasure, on pages 3 and 4 the writers say that they are very much in favour of an industrial development corporation. I do not know if the Home Secretary has yet read this document. The writers obviously believe that his arguments against it were spurious and ignorant arguments and that he did not understand the nature of the problem. They are very much in favour of this being brought about. They tell us that:
The use of public money should be accompanied by public control of that money…


This is really dangerous—
and we see the Industrial Development Corporation as a suitable means to this end.
This is almost like reading Lenin a few years ago. I do not want to go on reading from it, but it is a fascinating and enjoyable document. It goes on later to put the case for an economic council, and says that the economic council should be the executive of the development council. In other words, it should plan closely the way in which the economy of Northern Ireland could be made more healthy and refurbished as a result, (a) of a development corporation, (b) an economic council, and (c) the use of public money in private industry, providing there were proper safeguards for the money which the public invests.
This is a very great step forward. I hope that the Home Secretary is now to tell us that it is accepted. I put this straight question to him. Is it the case that at Stormont there is now acceptance of the need for an economic planning council? I am told that there is. I am told that the trade unions are being approached for nominations and that six nominations can be made.
Here we come up against the old bogy. The trade unions would be very willing to nominate suitable people to sit on such a body, but they certainly will not co-operate with any people nominated by the Stormont Government ostensibly to represent trade unions but in fact not accepting the kind of representation they want. In other words, they want the right to select their own representatives whom they believe could represent them very well on a council of this type. If we could get that kind of co-operation and could erect the sort of furniture for it to move in this way, I am sure many of the great problems which face us would be capable of solution, which so far we have not found. I again remind the Home Secretary of the words he used, and I hope he will withdraw them:
when hon. Members opposite talk about an economic planning council, either they mean direction of industry or they mean nothing at all.
The pamphlet also mentions the terrifically important problem of freight rates. I sometimes think that this is the greatest single problem we all face. No matter how efficient the industry of

Northern Ireland becomes, we shall still have the great problem of getting goods across without adding a sort of on-cost to production costs which makes it impossible for manufacturers there to compete on price in our markets. There is much to commend the idea that we should invest our money on specific issues rather than spread it too widely over a number of issues which cannot give the return we require. This question of getting our priorities right is most vital. I know that there is no contention in this House on this question because hon. Members on both sides have mentioned the great problem of freight rates. I should like to see the two Governments decide to tackle the problem, perhaps from an entirely new angle.
The question was raised in the Hall Report about the attitude to public works. I thought it terribly backward and the pamphlet I have quoted agrees with me on this. Will the Home Secretary tell us today that there is no veto on the enlargement of our effort in public works if it is felt that this can assist in the solution of the general problems we are discussing? On the question of transport costs my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) received a very interesting letter—which he showed to the Home Secretary—some time ago. It was from a gentleman asking that we should study the short sea route. He mentioned that the distance between Donaghadee and Port Patrick on the Scottish side is a mere 18 miles, three miles less than the Dover Straits. He is of the opinion that developments at that point could make an appreciable difference to the cost of freight. I know that a large amount of capital would be invested to get the port facilities on both sides——

Mr. Henry Clark: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, the problem is not so easy of solution. The difficulty is at Port Patrick. One is not much nearer to British industry at Port Patrick than one is at Donaghadee. Stranraer is only eight miles from Port Patrick——

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman should not interrupt until he has heard the whole of the case. I do not profess to be completely au fait with this matter, but I have heard the arguments and I think that we deserve an answer from the Government. I am told that a ferry such as


the "Maid of Kent" on the Dover run would cross in 70 minutes and could transport 1,900 vehicles a day in 10 trips. Taking the charges which are now operative on the Dover-Calais run and applying them to the short crossing to which I have referred, this would represent a great improvement in costs.
On the present run from Larne to Stranraer, a distance of 34 miles, it costs nearly twice as much to take a car across as for the 68 miles journey between Dover and Ostend. This matter needs investigation. I want to know whether the Government can give an answer to the problem, because we are concerned with getting the costs down. I am told that whereas in 1950 British Railways carried 17,460 vehicles across the Channel, by 1961 the figure was 340,000. Therefore, there is obviously scope for a vast increase in the traffic. The tourist trade between the mainland and Northern Ireland would get a great shot in the arm and the Northern Ireland industries would probably benefit enormously from such an increase. This may not be a "runner"—I do not know—but I believe that this is the kind of suggestion which should be considered, and I am sure that the economy would benefit if we could make a go of it.
Northern Ireland is one big development area. N.E.D.C. a while ago referred to growth points and so on. There could well be a co-operative effort in developing the Scottish side at Port Patrick along with the development that I have suggested on the Irish side. I know that the railway cuts are to apply to Northern Ireland as well as on the mainland. I believe that the line to Larne will be left in being, although on the Scottish side the Stranraer link is to go. We would reach a fantastic position if this scheme were to become operative, for Dr. Beeching would have to get out the pack mules when the traffic reached the Scottish side. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider my suggestion and will make sure that we shall not be robbed of its value by a silly move to close the railway link at Stranraer while developments are made on the other side.
Let me give some figures to show that the Stranraer link is vital. I am told that 40 per cent. of the people who travel on the boat to Larne go by rail to Stranraer in the first place and that in last year's

accounts the steamer's income increased to £286,000 from £200,000 in the previous year.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to Short Brothers. I take a pretty dim view of the way in which the Government have handled that firm's affairs. Last year has been one of great anxiety for the management of Short Brothers. We all remember that they got the conditional grant of £10 million for the completion of the Belfast and the Seacat contracts. No further Belfasts have been ordered and the firm is almost in a desperate position. A year ago the Minister of Defence announced to the Press that the sub-contract for the R.A.F. VC.10 would be placed with Short Brothers. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what has happened to that contract. I know that a small amount of tooling has been authorised, but of course one cannot go on re-tooling in anticipation of projects if they do not materialise. Surely the time is overdue for Short Brothers to be told whether they can go ahead with confidence with re-tooling for the job.
The House was told that a sub-contract for the AW681 would be placed with Shorts. We know that the aircraft is still in an embryonic stage. Even as regards design—and I am not suggesting that we are near the end of that part of the business yet—I understand that Shorts have not been consulted, and neither has that company been brought into any negotiations or arrangements about it. I should like to know whether the company is to share in the design work and what kind and size of sub-contract it will get. These are major uncertainties which the firm in its present state cannot continue to carry.
I should like to know whether Short Brothers will be brought into discussion on these matters, and if so when. I am told that on the design side the development teams are moving rapidly towards almost sheer calamity. The air-fraft design team is losing staff at a dangerous rate. There was considerable voluntary retirement, of course, but this has accelerated since the Home Secretary made an awful gaff on 20th April by saying that only a couple of design teams were needed though out the whole of the British aircraft industry. We are now reaching the stage where we shall see a


flight of this type of highly-skilled labour from Belfast unless we can get speedy answers to these questions.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take into account the fact that a firm outside the group, Handley Page, is receiving a contract for laminar flow, which shows that an outside firm can be used. As to the Belfast, will the hon. Gentleman recall what happened last night in the defence debate? One of his hon. Friends did everything he could to deprecate the Belfast.

Mr Lee: Mr Lee indicated dissent

Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman should not shake his head. Some of his hon. Friends pose as experts in these matters. What we need is a little organisation so that we can give the people the backing that they need. If one gives a dog a bad name it sticks. The people in Northern Ireland want a helping hand.

Mr. Lee: If the hon. Gentleman would like me to run through a list of quotations from statements by some of his right hon. and hon. Friends when the Labour Party was in power—

Sir A. V. Harvey: That was 12 years ago.

Mr. Lee: Never mind about that—statements which denigrated the whole level of British effort in the world, I can give them to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, these days one gets the impression that there is not entire unanimity in the Tory Party on human issues. If we say that one side of the House is representative of those issues and the other is not, I do not know where democracy will get to in the House of Commons. I do not want any of my hon. Friends to denigrate any effort which we are making. However, it must not be said that, because opinions differ on both sides of the House, there is anything the Front Benches should do to stop that.
I believe that Seacat has already been sold to seven navies and that other orders are almost certain to follow. I understand that the ability of Shorts to accept any further export orders may well be in jeopardy because of the extent to which its design teams are now leaving. It would be a great tragedy if, export

orders being there for the taking, Shorts could not fulfil them because of a shortage in its design teams.
The Government's attitude towards Shorts has been very bad. When the Government brought the aircraft firms together into consortia, they made it quite clear that it would not be possible to obtain Government orders unless firms joined the consortia. Shorts are as to nearly 70 per cent. owned by the Government. Therefore, the only people who could decide whether Shorts went into the consortia were the Government. They did not decide that Shorts should go in. Now the Government are penalising Shorts because they have not gone in. This is fantastic. We would like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's views on this.
An hon. Member mentioned the enormous importance of the work which Shorts are doing in education in Belfast. I have been to Queen's and seen what is going on. It would be a major tragedy if all that educational work were to go for nothing either because Shorts were used merely for sub-contracting or were allowed to run down altogether. I will not read the figures of apprentices who have been trained or tell the House the work they are now doing. Most of us know how enormously important this is to the people of Northern Ireland.
These are some of the issues on which we should like to hear the Government's comments. It is not enough for us merely to say that we keep on putting in money, that unfortunately we do not get as good results as we should like, but that at any rate it stops it getting any worse. Thirty-six thousand unemployed at the height of the summer is a tragedy. We have suggested ways which have not yet been tried of bringing better results if we concentrated upon them. Previously I made the contentious suggestion that the Government should organise certain sections of industry. The silence from the Government Front Bench has been deafening.
The time has come when dogma of this type must be out. Both the F.B.I. Report, which we discussed in the science debate, and the Report of the manufacturers, which I mentioned earlier, accept the need for public money, in many instances allied with private money inside the same firm. I, for my part, demand a


better return to the public for the money invested than the pamphlet does.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that nowadays economic planning is a prerequisite to success. In Northern Ireland this is accepted by the employers. The trade unions and the Labour Party have advocated it for years. Only the Government are out of step. May we be told tonight that the silly dogma that there is something about competitive private enterprise which shall never meet public investment has gone and that the right hon. Gentleman has caught up with the Prime Minister's statement that the Tories are now planners? The truth of that can be demonstrated by their attitude to this debate. We shall listen with great interest to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman has been converted.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I did not know that I was to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). I had prepared a speech on Northern Ireland's largest industry—agriculture—which the hon. Gentleman did not mention.

Mr. Lee: How many workers are employed in agriculture?

Mr. Clark: One hundred and ten thousand are employed in agriculture, 11,000 in shipbuilding and 66,000 in textiles, if I remember correctly. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting speech about Northern Ireland. We were glad to know that he had read a pamphlet about it before he spoke. That was the pamphlet produced by the Northern Ireland Economic Sub-Committee of the National Association of British Manufacturers. I know the authors of this pamphlet very well. Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that the parts of the pamphlet with which I agree are excellent. The hon. Gentleman did not go into any details about the parts he did not agree with.
I thought that much the most significant sections of the pamphlet were those dealing with training for industry We all agree that there must be co-operation between unions and management and between both of them and the Government. In the training of people for industry there is probably more room for real co-operation between union, management and government than in

any other section. There are industries in Northern Ireland which cannot expand because they have not enough skilled labour. I am sorry to say that the stumbling block in training skilled labour is the old fashioned restrictionist idea of some trade unions. I can produce evidence to support my contention. if I am forced to. However, I do not want to expand on this because I have much to say on other subjects.
I was surprised that a Front Bench speaker for the Labour Party should spend a considerable portion of his speech supporting an idea for a new sea route between Donaghadee, which has not got a railway, is at the end of a very congested road system and where the harbour is fit for fishing boats only, and Portpatrick, which has no railway and also has a port which is fit for fishing boats and little more. This is not an exciting idea which commends itself to anyone in possession of a few facts. Again, the hon. Gentleman spoke about cross-Channel freights and said that these were the nub of the whole problem. However, he did not mention the D. V. House Report which, bad as it was, was a definitive report on freights across the Irish Sea.
The hon. Gentleman took an extremely friendly interest in Ireland and said a number of very wise things. I should like to thank him. I shall now concentrate on agriculture, which is the largest, the completely predominant, industry in Northern Ireland. Over 100,000 people work in it. I should think that half the population of Northern Ireland have a direct interest in agriculture. Northern Ireland has about one-fortieth of the population of the United Kingdom, yet we still manage to feed one in fifteen of the population of the United Kingdom. Each year we export about £65 million of agricultural produce.
This year we, like everybody else, have had a bad year. The weather we had in the winter was probably better than that experienced in England, but the spring has been worse. The hay harvest may have been saved from being a disaster in the last three or four days. Like all really bad harvests, its effect will not be felt till the farmers start running short of fodder in the spring of next year.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I am very concerned, as are the farmers in


Northern Ireland, about the prospect of a very large grain harvest coming in rather late this year and competing with continental grain harvests, with an absolute collapse of grain prices. We were glad to hear the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that this position is being watched and that something will be done. Farmers in Northern Ireland were also very glad to hear the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22nd May when he assured us that he had plans ready to control imports of food products. We have also welcomed the higher beef prices which followed the negotiations with Argentina earlier this year.
Many people in Northern Ireland, not least the farmers, have been interested, though somewhat puzzled, at the 14 points the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has put forward as the Labour Party's policy for agriculture following the next General Election. Fortunately for all concerned, the party opposite have little chance of putting it into action. It is a bromide policy if ever I saw one. We are told, for example, that guaranteed prices will be continued, but the right hon. Member for Belper made no mention of the concept of standard quantities. Are they to be increased or decreased, or is the whole concept to be done away with?
The right hon. Member for Belper made no mention of farm incomes; whether they would be guaranteed and at what level they should be stabilised. In his 14 points he said that he would look to international agreements to stabilise prices, but he did not say anything about the level of stabilisation. Are grain prices to be stabilised in the region of £35 a ton, as the French suggest? Is our food bill to be increased by £50 million in relation to the 10 million tons of grain to be imported? If the party opposite wish to put forward an agricultural policy, the least they can do is to make it specific and meaningful.
We are told, and this is probably the most ominous of the 14 points, that we are to have commodity com-

missions—or is it commisars? It appears that these are to apply to the main imported foodstuffs and that these commissions are to be given wide powers. Are they not the usual stalking horses which one can disclaim when bad things happen and for which one can claim responsibility when things go well? Is it not a new Ministry of Food bulk buying system under a new name?
It seems that one cannot speak about agriculture these days without calling for international commodity agreements. When I see one I will applaud loudly. The only one which seems to work is not an international but a Commonwealth one—the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The World Sugar Agreement has gone while the World Coffee Agreement is hardly worth the paper on which it is written. If there are to be world commodity agreements we want to be told by the party opposite how they will work. The Labour Party base a great deal of their agricultural thinking on the concept that one can solve the problems of the old world by dumping surpluses on to the under-developed new world. I can claim a little more knowledge of the under-developed countries, certainly some of them, than the right hon. Member for Belper. The way to boost their economies is not to pour a steady stream of cheap food into their markets, which will destroy their home agricultural industries.
No one is more anxious than I to assist the under-developed countries. Famine food in emergencies is one thing, but steady streams being poured in, killing local industries, is probably the worst turn we can do them. Faced with the alternative which I have described, the fanners of Northern Ireland—although some of them would probably not admit it—are reasonably content with the Conservative Government, at least compared with the alternative. Needless to say, there are plenty of complaints.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Would my hon. Friend care to say what he thinks about the other proposals of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), for instance, the Land Commission?

Mr. Clark: Fortunately, Northern Ireland is insulated from the Land Commission, but the winding up of it was widely applauded.
Despite the comments I have made about the Conservative Government serving the interests of Northern Ireland's farmers, there are legitimate complaints, and an important one is mentioned in a letter received from a constituent by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham). It is concerned with plant breeders' rights. When will the Government take action to give plant breeders the rights they deserve for their own inventions? We in Northern Ireland are famous for our rose and daffodil growing, the breeding of potatoes and other plants. The industry is stagnating because the man who spends years producing an excellent species too often finds that he is robbed by a foreign agency. Will the Government take early action to solve this problem?
Another difficulty faces us because we are trying as hard as we can to expand our bacon industry and to increase our sales to this country. One can now see the beginnings of a large campaign we are waging. One of our troubles is that, because of the constitution of Northern Ireland, the marketing board which the Northern Ireland Government can set up cannot concern itself with sales outside Northern Ireland. The reason is that the Northern Ireland Government are restricted to home affairs. Any marketing body must be restricted to Northern Ireland. This is a somewhat small but extremely irritating point and I hope that, if an application comes from the Northern Ireland Government, time will be found in this House to amend the Government of Ireland Act to allow our marketing boards to concern themselves with exports.
In another connection, it is worth recalling that, for similar reasons, we cannot concern ourselves with foreign affairs. We are autonomous regarding animal health, but when international conferences are held on brucellosis or foot-and-mouth or other diseases a representative of Northern Ireland attends by invitation and not of right. I hope that this matter can be looked into.
The Larne-Stranraer steamer route has already been discussed. One could speak for hours on this issue but today I will merely stress the importance of this service to the farmer. If it goes it will

affect the agriculture industry probably more than any other. It is important to remember that one of its most important cargoes is perishable goods—mushrooms, chickens, vegetables, and so on. These goods are of the utmost importance to small farmers, to whom they can give a big income. A route such as this for perishable goods is vital to small farmers, many of them in my constituency.
The main reason for discontent among Northern Irish farmers at the moment, however, is the question of the subsidy that should have been paid on potatoes in 1960. It might be helpful if I gave the background to this issue. Until 1959 potato subsidies were paid on the basis of a guarantee to the growers. From 1959, under Order No. 983, the guarantee was placed on a new basis, as a guarantee to the industry. In 1959 potato prices were fair in the United Kingdom and no subsidy was paid. In 1960 prices in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom fell to a disastrously low level.
The new subsidy rate was being worked on the basis that the Government would pay to the industry the difference between the average price in the United Kingdom and the guaranteed price. At the end of the 1960 harvest the average price was about £2 below the guaranteed price and, therefore, the Government were due to repay about £4½ million to the potato industry. An agreement was reached whereby one-eighth of this sum would go to the potato growers of Northern Ireland—a completely ad hoc agreement about which the growers of Northern Ireland do not argue. So seven-eighths was to be paid to the Potato Marketing Board in Great Britain and one-eighth, or about £½ million, to the potato growers of Northern Ireland. That stage was reached early in 1961. Then discussions began about what should be done with the money due to the Northern Ireland growers, who had had a disastrous potato harvest in 1960.
Throughout 1961 discussions took place between the Ulster Farmers' Union and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture about the means by which this £500,000 should be paid to the potato growers. There was discussion as to whether it should be paid on a tonnage or acreage basis. Throughout 1959 and 1960, and, indeed, throughout 1961, there


was no doubt among potato growers, officials of the Farmers' Union or, as far as I know, the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, that that £500,000 was due to the potato growers of Northern Ireland and would be paid to them.
After these negotiations about how the £500,000 should be distributed had continued for about eight months, suddenly, early in 1962, the Minister of Agriculture at Westminster announced that he was not going to allow this £500,000 to be paid at all but proposed to put it in a fund for support buying in future.
Farmers had been led to believe that if they grew potatoes there would be a guaranteed price for them and that if the price which they received in the market fell below the guarantee they would receive some form of return to make good their losses. They went on believing that throughout the planting season and throughout the harvest. Almost a year after the harvest, believing that that money was due to them, suddenly the Minister told them, "I am sorry, I do not propose to pay it this time".
That was, I believe, a complete breach of faith. Thousands of farmers all over Northern Ireland think that the Minister has broken faith. A fair number of them also think that he has broken the law because, frankly, if what he did was not a breach of the law, it was distinctly sharp practice. The question of taking legal action against the Minister was gone into, and I am told that it was very much touch and go whether counsel's advice was to proceed or not to proceed. A sum of £500,000 or a little less has been deposited with the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. It is under the control of the Minister of Agriculture at Westminster. This money was due bylaw to the potato growers in Northern Ireland in 1960. The Minister says that he proposes to use this money for support buying. He justifies his action in not paying that money by saying that support buying is the best way to support the price. We are in full agreement that support buying is the best way to do that. The Ulster farmers have been trying for years to persuade the Minister to go in for that policy, but he has continually turned it down.
If the Minister believed that support buying was best, he should have done his support buying for the 1960 crop in 1960. All he did was to spend £60,000 for a little bit of assistance in respect of the sea transport costs. There was a real breach of faith by the Minister of Agriculture against the people who grew potatoes in Northern Ireland in 1960. I want to leave the Home Secretary and the Ministry of Agriculture in no doubt about that whatsoever. But that is bygones. What we want to know now is what will happen to this £500,000. The fund has been in existence for over a year and interest has been accumulating on it. About £40,000, which is, I think, less than the interest which has accrued on the £500,000, is being used this year to open the potato meal factories. We have had experience of money being put away in the funds of the Ministry of Agriculture for good causes. There was a fund for flax about five years ago and another for grass seed a few years before that. They never seem to see the light of day.
Is this £500,000 a completely ad hoc fund? Is there any system for administering it? I should like the Minister to give us a clear statement on how this money will be used and an assurance that if he cannot see his way to using it for support buying in a reasonably short time he will do as he undertook to do when he made the order in 1959, namely, distribute it to the people who grew potatoes in 1960, many of whom lost a great deal of money in the process.

Mr. John E. Maginnis (Armagh): Would my hon. Friend agree that our trouble stems mainly from the fact that we do not have a ware potato marketing board in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Clark: I agree. There is a great deal to be said for having such a board in Northern Ireland to which this £500,000 could be paid instead of leaving it dumped, hoping that it may be forgotten in due course so that when we want a new agricultural college the Minister will be able to say, "I have found £500,000,"and so we get a new agricultural college. But that will not happen until 1980 or 1990.
I do not wish to labour this point. The farmers of Northern Ireland are not doing too badly, although they are not doing as


well as they would like. They have a number of complaints and I have detailed some of them, but the 1960 potato subsidy is one thing which will not be forgotten. We have a phrase in Northern Ireland, "Remember 1690". I am rather afraid that, if the Government do not do something, the potato farmers may say, "Remember 1960."

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) into the details of the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland because I am not competent to talk on the agriculture industry. However, I have always believed that the land of any nation is its most precious possession and that it should be used, developed and never wasted. It should be tilled and cultivated, and I believe that it is a highly desirable economic and social thing to do to support a nation which uses its land efficiently.
Although I criticise the Government, I was very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of a party which supports the Government, charging them With such a serious breach of faith in so far as they have let this country down so badly in supporting agriculture in Northern Ireland. I am glad that as he developed his theme he came to the conclusion that marketing boards which gave stable prices would be highly desirable in preserving the countryside and the agricultural way of life and in expanding the prosperity of the people engaged in agriculture, because at first he seemed to deprecate these commissars, marketing boards or international bodies which bring some basic stability to agricultural prices.
I have always thought that I was lucky compared with those who farm the land and produce my food. I was an engineer. If we did not sell a product today, we put it on the shelf and sold it the next day. If it went out of date we melted it down and manufactured something else. One cannot do that with a carcass of beef or a sack of potatoes. I have always thought that the producers of food were in an unfortunate position. I am prepared to pay a little more to the people who provide me with good, sound wholesome food from the soil of my country if at the same time they keep that soil in good heart so that future

generations can be fed. I support any Government which does that and keeps that in mind, although it may make a number of mistakes in doing it. There are very few of us who do not make mistakes.
My main reason for taking part in this debate is to refer to what is to me a tragedy in Northern Ireland concerning the firm of Short Bros. and Harland. I do not know the company very well, although I made some tools for it when it was at Kingstown, I think. I built eight jigs for the assembly of the bomb carriage doors on one of the bombers which it was manufacturing. I remember making these huge jigs. It was a long and difficult job. The company sent us some standard assembly fixtures which I had to use as copies. They were excellently made and designed, and they were well preserved. On checking them, I found that they were very accurate. I have always had a great respect for the company ever since.
I have been in this House for 12 years and have watched what has happened in the aircraft industry. Before I go on to my main point, I wish to deprecate those people who talk adversely about the aircraft industry and its products and who are always ready to condemn a product in the process of development. In the modern engineering world, especially in the aircraft industry, a design team sets out with a specification to design an aircraft with a certain performance, but it is always in a state of development and is never complete. As with the TSR2, as development proceeds all sorts of side issues and new developments arise. This and that are incorporated, somebody brings along another design and the whole thing is always in the design melting pot. It is the easiest thing in the world for lay people to say that a product which is popular today will be of no use tomorrow. That is what happens in engineering in the twentieth century.
Harlands did much good work during the war. I am dismayed at the danger of a design team starting on a design project but being stopped for all sorts of political reasons. After the team had been engaged on the Belfast and the Government said that they would place an order for it, it was stopped. This is disheartening to those who are engaged in the dynamic process of development.
A design engineer does not design a product on the drawing board and then decide to cancel it because he knows that it will last only 12 months. If he did this, he would never design anything. All our lives we have been designing and producing things which have lasted for two or three years and then have been replaced by something better. That is the dynamic law of the engineer. He is always making out-of-date tomorrow what he made yesterday.
This is one of the political failures of the Government, perhaps of the country. Perhaps it is because of the conservative attitude of the British people. Perhaps we do not like waste, as we might call it. When design engineers and metallurgists who are working on high-speed aircraft get half or two-thirds of the way through a project, something else might come along and change it, but as a result of their metallurgical work there is many a man driving a motor car with platinum on the distributor, the quality and life of which have been developed as a result of metallurgists working on aero engines in Rolls-Royce or in Shorts, Belfast. It is not all lost. Research and development in armaments, in naval or aircraft work, may not ultimately come up to expectation, but a great deal of the work done in research and development can be used by other industries and is not completely wasted. As long as we take too narrow a view, we will be in danger always of being behind other industrial nations who spend more and more in scientific development.
There was a time when a dozen skilled men could by their skill create employment for 200 or 300 unskilled men. This is still true in many industries, but it is becoming true in fewer industries. A modern production plant requires far more skilled men to utilise the capital investment and to keep it productive than the plant in production will employ in unskilled people.
New industries could be taken to Northern Ireland at a tremendous cost in investment and employ a large number of highly skilled men in electronics or some of the new, highly technical engineering processes, which it takes a lot of skilled labour to bring into production. Once they are in production, however, few unskilled hands can operate them.
I was surprised to read that even in agriculture, where one would not think that these techniques were as highly developed, there has been a fall of 22,000 in the labour force in Northern Ireland, although there has been an increase in the output from the land. This is desirable. If we can make two blades of grass grow tomorrow where one grows today and with less labour, that is all to the good. If I buy my wife a vacuum cleaner so that she can throw away her carpet brush and pan, she is delighted. It saves her much hard labour. The rôle of the engineer and the scientist is to do just that.
Northern Ireland, this integral part of the United Kingdom, which has its 7½ per cent. unemployment, has an excellent agricultural base, feeding its own people and exporting a surplus. It also has an excellent scientific and technical base, both in shipbuilding and in aircraft, two great industries which can provide a great deal of work, and highly skilled work, in other industries than their own. A prosperous agricultural base can provide a lot of highly skilled work in many directions in satisfying that agricultural base.
I see no reason why 110,000 agricultural workers employed in industry should not make the same economic and social demands upon the society in which they live as 110,000 engineers or men in all sorts of distributive trades. If one recognises skill, concentration and loyalty to a job, one has to look for it in the farm worker, who has to, sacrifice himself for animals, plants and all sorts of things. He cannot attend to them only when he feels like it, but must tend them when they feel like it. The engineer, however, can deal with his functions as an engineer when he chooses. The steel does not care whether it is operated on today or tomorrow. It will not perish if it is not handled today. That does not apply to the farmer's produce. Therefore, I have great sympathy with the men engaged in agriculture. There are many of us who enjoy the products of Northern Ireland, especially at Christmas time, when they are particularly good. A Northern Ireland turkey is just as good as one from Norfolk and I would just as soon have it.
When one builds up a team of research workers and developers in an industry, particularly in the aircraft industry—I have not worked in it, but have done a lot of tooling for it—the association of


individual experts and their working together in development produces after a time a tremendous unearned increment by the association of those experts working as a team in a given direction of research and development. I have seen this in the motor industry and I presume that it is true of the aircraft industry. It is certainly true of the steel industry and of mining. The bringing together of a team of young men, draughtsmen, designers, metallurgists and physicists, yields excellent work over a period, but once they work together, once the product comes into view and into development, there arises a tremendous increment of profitability and benefit from their growing association and their growing confidence in the future and the integrity of those who employ them for the product on which they are engaged.
I say this as one who spent a good deal of time in the motor industry. There is no greater joy as a skilled man than in feeling that one is performing something under the direction of men like William Morris, Sir Frederick Mills, as he was then, and the late Herbert Austin, of the Austin Motor Co. It is a great thrill to work for men who, one feels, have complete confidence in the product on which they are employing people. It is the duty of the Government to support the aircraft industry. The Government do support the aircraft industry, because the Government, through their institutions, B.O.A.C., B.E.A., the Army, the Navy, are the greatest customer of the industry, and therefore the Government must be the greatest patron.
It must be very disheartening for anyone in Short's of Belfast to have been—over the last 10 years so far as my experience goes—in the almost continuous situation whereby the people to whom they are responsible, the Government of the day, seem to have no faith in what they have been doing. It is most disheartening, and I think it is unfair, and if I were in that industry, or an institution like that, I should say to the Government, "Make up your mind. If you are going to close the institution, close it." I should be inclined to get out of it, because I should feel myself to be working for people with no faith in the institution. It is shocking that there has been this shillying and shally-

ing about Short Brothers and Harland of Belfast.
I come to the question of training in modern industry. The training of a group of boys in an industry should be such that the technicians of the future can be drawn from them. That is not always easy for employers. I recognise that. I am sorry that there was an hon. Gentleman opposite who introduced the question of opposition by the trade unions to apprenticeship training. That is not so. An apprenticeship and training system, as I see it, must not be a system merely to provide turners and fitters. It ought to be such as to produce technicians for the future. I am not blaming the employers for this, but many of the productive institutions, are not suitable institutions for the training of apprentices.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the firm of Short Bros. has a splendid apprenticeship scheme of great benefit to the young lads in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Bence: Yes. I shall be coming to that in a minute.
I am just developing an argument that there are many production institutions engaged solely in such production that apprenticeship can only mean creating teams of skilled turners, fitters, millwrights, and will not provide sufficient background for development and research, in which I believe every apprentice should have an insight, and with which he should have some contact. I say that because I believe that an apprenticeship system should be such that out of it we can produce more and more highly skilled technicians. In my day, out of, say, twenty students there would be produced perhaps five or six highly skilled technicians. The rest would be fitters on the factory floor. This is where the trade union opposition comes in. What industry requires is not more skilled operators on the floor but more skilled technicians off the floor. It is up in the drawing office where we want them; it is in the design department.
I dare say that there are in Northern Ireland, as there are in Scotland, craftsmen from the old types of crafts, skilled men who are unemployed—craftsmen, journeymen unemployed; and yet we are short of skilled people in Scotland and the people we are short of are the


skilled technicians. Many of the new industries now demand fewer and fewer unskilled people and more and more skilled people.
In Northern Ireland there are two institutions which are in a very low state. One is the aircraft industry, whose situation is very unsatisfactory, and yet it is an institution which would provide us, not only with excellent aircraft, but, through research and development, and the production of technicians, with an increasing corps of highly skilled men, not only for use in the aircraft industry but in other industries, quite apart from the aircraft industry, because they all require the same basic training.

Mr. H. Clark: There is some difference between Scotland and Northern Ireland and we are talking about Northern Ireland at present. There are very few tradesmen, lowly chaps who just fit in on the workshop floor, or higher technicians, who are out of employment in Northern Ireland. What Northern Ireland is crying out for all the time is people trained in the simple skills such as carpentry and bricklaying, and it is because of the trade unions' restrictions on the number of apprentices in training that a number of factories cannot expand production, and a number of programmes cannot be carried through.

Mr. Bence: That is one reason but not the main reason. The reason why we get these shortages is that a lot of skilled men in the building industry and in the engineering industry leave Northern Ireland. They are here in London; they are in the Midlands. There is migration from Northern Ireland of these skilled men. They are not going to stay there to do the semi-skilled work. They move out. Of course they do. It is within this framework that we get the trade union opposition, and it is quite understandable.
What I am asking for is that in every major productive institution, especially where the Government are interested, as they are in Short Bros, and Harland, as the Government are a part shareholder, there should be kept development teams to produce first-class, skilled men with ability. Instead of reducing or destroying centres out of which, by training and education, one can produce first-class technicians, we should keep them.

To me, in the modern world, it is as important to produce the technician of tomorrow as it is to produce the aeroplane of today.
I am sure that Harland's have done this very well. It is true that I am not associated with them, but I have known them, and I have seen their men. They were bombed out of—Kingston, I think it was—and came up to the Midlands during the war, and I met their people, and I was very impressed by the quality of the people I met.
The trouble is that there is a failure on the part of the Government to appreciate that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom—and I want to conclude with an old plea which I have made before. There are 55 million people in the United Kingdom. I do not know how many there are in Northern Ireland. We Members of Parliament in London often meet Americans, and I have heard them say that it is farther from New York to Los Angeles than from New York to Liverpool. In talking of the United Kingdom we are talking of a much smaller—a small—country, and yet when we have debates about the situation in Wales or Northern Ireland or in Scotland people always talk about those parts of the United Kingdom being a long way from the markets. I spent my life in the light engineering industry where I saw the development of automatic processes and mechanical handling, and when people talk about being a long way from the market in this country I really wonder, because it seems to me absolutely crazy to talk of being a long way from the market in this little island, where we are all on top of one another. We are not a long way from the market in any sense at all.
What we do lack—I think this is the point my hon. Friend was making when he was talking about transport from Northern Ireland—are the best means of transport. My hon. Friend was talking about the cost of transport being high. Handling is the cost of transport. One could introduce mechanical handling. It can only be successful if the volume is there. It seems that in Northern Ireland we cannot make an investment in mechanical handling because we have not got the volume; we do not get the volume because we have not got mechanical handling.
The Government must make a decision to have a big social investment in the field of transport in the form of mechanical handling. The cost of transporting a product from here to there is the cost of loading and unloading it. That was in my day, and a long time ago. That was a high cost.
No matter from which port in Northern Ireland the products come, at those terminals must be created, even if other terminals have to go out, the volume of traffic which will justify the most modern systems of mechanical handling. The Government must make a serious effort in the interests of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is entitled to it; it has had a very rough time for 10 years. If they do not, I would not accuse them, like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) said, of breach of faith; I would accuse them of lack of interest.

6.51 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), in opening this interesting debate, paid tribute to the late Sir David Campbell. He was a man who came late to the House, at the age of over 60, after a lifetime of distinguished public service elsewhere. He made his mark in his own charming way on the House of Commons and played his full part in its affairs for ten years or more. I would say that he made not a single enemy here, and on both sides of the House we miss his wise and modest figure.
There has been another change since our last debate in November, and that was a change in the Premiership of Northern Ireland. I count myself fortunate that, at this time last year, when I first assumed my responsibilities in the United Kingdom Government towards Northern Ireland, I gained the privilege of Lord Brooke borough's friendship and of his unique experience as Prime Minister of Northern Ireland for many years. He has served the United Kingdom as well as his own Ulster most devotedly. I think that all of us would wish that a warm message of goodwill and good wishes should go out from this debate to him and Lady Brookeborough.
We welcome Lord Brookeborough's successor, Captain Terence O'Neill. I can say with confidence that as Home

Secretary I have already established with him an equally close working relationship, and I attach tremendous importance to the closeness of the liaison between the Home Secretary and other United Kingdom Ministers on the one hand and Northern Ireland Ministers on the other.
The House may have noticed that not long ago, when the then Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs came to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport the possible closure of the Stranraer railway link, I made a point of being present. It will be my object, whenever a Northern Ireland Minister is coming to discuss some major question with a United Kingdom Minister, to be there too, if I can, so that I can make sure that I am fully informed and can exert all my influence to the best of my ability.

Mr. Jay: Since the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Stranraer railway link, could he help us by giving us a simple assurance right away now that the railway from Carlisle to Stranraer will not be closed down?

Mr. Brooke: I will answer that in a moment, but I wonder whether I might ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen not to interrupt me, if possible, because there is an agreement that we should pass on to the second subject of debate at 7.15 p.m. or very soon afterwards. I will do my best in that limited time.
Before there can be any question of the Stranraer railway link being closed there would have to be a specific proposal from Dr. Beeching to close those lines.

Mr. Jay: There is.

Mr. Brooke: That would then have to remain open to objections and representations for a specified period. It would be examined by the appropriate consultative committee, and a final decision would be taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I can say with assurance that before he took that decision my right hon. Friend would certainly wish to pay attention to all that I should say to him, if he did not know it already, about the importance of the sea link with Northern Ireland.
There seems to me to be on the other side of the House a somewhat superficial approach to the real nature of Northern


Ireland's problem. In fact, though unemployment is still far too high, there are a great many encouraging features, and I can say that without any complacency. During 1962, as is well known, unemployment increased very substantially in Great Britain. In that period—between December, 1961, and December, 1962—unemployment in Northern Ireland fell, against the trend on this side of the Irish Sea. In September, 1962, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of people who were in employment in Northern Ireland was 9,000 higher than 12 months before. The industrial developments announced in 1962 foreshadowed more than 6,000 new jobs when they were all complete. That followed the record year of 1961, when developments which were going to give 8,600 new jobs were announced.
My hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly right in saying that at the moment there seems to be a pause. That is because the effect of the past slackening of private investment, with which we are so familiar in this country, is now being felt. It also may be because of the disappointment over the Common Market, which has created uncertainty. But I believe that interest will revive as soon as the spare capacity which there has been in the British economy, and especially in the metal-using firms over here, has been taken up, encouraged by the various forms of stimulus which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has applied.
I think it is interesting that between 1961 and 1962 industrial production in the United Kingdom as a whole rose by 1per cent. in all industries together. In Northern Ireland production in all industries together increased not by 1 per cent. but by 3½ per cent. One sees the same favourable trend if one looks at the output per person employed in the industrial sector. In Northern Ireland between 1961 and 1962 that increased by about 7 per cent. compared with 1 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. That is, of course, a reflection of the capital intensity of the new industries and their use of skilled techniques for production in Northern Ireland. That is the kind of thing about which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was talking; but the fact is that we are doing it.
It is the same with public investment. Public investment in Northern Ireland as a proportion of public investment in Great Britain is in most fields higher than the proportion which the populations of the two countries bear to one another. Expenditure on roads in Northern Ireland is double the proportional figure for the size of population. In the case of hospitals it is almost three times as high. It is higher in many other fields as well.
Public investment in factory building in Northern Ireland is nearly half the total public investment for this purpose in Great Britain. That illustrates, of course, the magnitude of the Northern Ireland Government's advance factory programme, which is such an important part of its policy. The number of houses completed in Northern Ireland last year was 8,215, which was an advance of 16 per cent. on the previous year. At the end of last year there were 9,950 houses under construction in Northern Ireland, which was 2,200 higher than two years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) mentioned agriculture. I will come in a moment to what he said about potato guarantees. He will no doubt be aware that agricultural output in Northern Ireland has been raised by 80 per cent. since before the last war. The value of the grants approved under the Small Farmer Scheme for small farmers in Northern Ireland is nearly one-third of the total for the United Kingdom as a whole. My hon. Friend also mentioned most effectively the outstanding importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy. Under the Farm Improvements Scheme 50,000 proposals have been approved at an estimated total cost of over £24 million, and grants already paid amount to nearly £5 million.
I cannot accept my hon. Friend's charge against my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that there has been a breach of faith over the potato guarantee. The sole question at issue is: how can this sum of about £500,000 be used to the best advantage of the growers? My hon. Friend seemed to suggest that it was lying idle and that nothing was happening to it. But, in fact, before we came to this summer, about £63,000 of it had already been spent on support operations, and it is


expected that another £70,000 or so will be used for support operations in the current year in buying up the end-of-the-season surpluses which existed at the end of the 1962 season. My hon. Friend can therefore see that the money is being used to good purpose, and I submit that the Northern Ireland potato growers in the long run gain more by this Fund being utilised for their benefit in these sort of ways than if it was simply distributed in cash.

Mr. H. Clark: Can my right hon. Friend give some information on how the money is to be controlled? The Minister of Agriculture has made no public statement. He merely deposited the sum. An expenditure of £100,000 over three years is not a full utilisation of over £500,000.

Mr. Brooke: As I understand it, the Northern Ireland Government are advising on how this money can best be utilised. I would have thought that they were in the best position to know.
There was talk about an economic planning council. The Northern Ireland Government have announced their intention to set up an economic planning council
to consider and recommend on means of furthering the economic development of Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the provision of employment, the promotion of economic growth and improved economic efficiency.
I hope that it will be a great success. I hope that employers, trade unionists, and others from outside, will take part.
This is very different from the Socialist fallacy of economic planning, which springs to the false conclusion that one can remove unemployment by the Government planning a factory into some area of unemployment. It is perfectly easy to set up a Government factory. The essence of it is that the factory should be a success and pay its way. Unless it can cover its costs and be a success one is simply raising hopes only to dash them again.
I am sure that one of the points the electorate will grasp by the time of the next election is that economic planning in the Socialist sense involves direction of industry. We believe that Government guidance which results in factories being set up by private enterprise is far more likely to be a successful means of

stimulating the economy and removing unemployment.

Mr. Richard Marsh: Make a serious speech.

Mr. Brooke: I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) about the position at Short Bros, and Harland. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) most unwisely described the situation there as almost desperate, and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East described it as disheartening. The fact is that the size of the labour force is higher now than it was two years ago, in sharp contrast with the experience of the aircraft industry elsewhere, where there has been a substantial fall compared with two years ago.
What the Government have already done, with the Northern Ireland Government, is to provide up to £10 million in financial assistance to enable the company to complete current orders. Shorts are to carry out work, under sub-contract, on the VC10 at an additional cost of £2¾ million. I understood the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to suggest that the firm had not got this work. But it is in fact going ahead. We need have no doubt about that and the right hon. Gentleman need not create alarm and despondency by casting doubt upon it.

Mr. Jay: I did not cast alarm and despondency. I said that the firm did not yet have the work. I am glad to hear that the work is on the way.

Mr. Brooke: We have heard a great deal from right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the dreadful things that are to happen. The fact is that Shorts are employing more people than two years ago.

Mr. McMaster: My main concern is over the design team, 80 members of which have left over the last couple of months.

Mr. Brooke: I am coming to the design team. Quite clearly there will be need for an efficient design team at the company for years ahead. It may not be as large as it has been but there are various projects which Shorts are putting up to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation. I know that in due course he hopes to be able to announce his decisions on them.
There need be no anxiety that the design team is to be totally dispersed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no truth in such a suggestion, and in fact my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation fully recognises the need for an adequate design team to back the Seacat production, whereas the hon. Member for Newton insinuated that we might be throwing away export orders for lack of a design team.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the firm has been asked to cut its existing design team on the Seacat work by half, and that this will place it in very great difficulty in completing export orders?

Mr. Brooke: I hope my hon. Friend will read in HANSARD what I have just said about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation's intentions.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South asked about the aircraft carrier. Obviously I cannot say where that will be built. The order will be placed by the Admiralty in accordance with normal contract procedure, and, as always, it will bear in mind the special problems of the shipbuilding industry. It is clear also that an order for a ship of this size and complexity will involve sub-contracts to firms in many parts of the country. Northern Ireland has great experience in many skills which should stand it in good stead when it comes to making a bid for this important work.
My hon. and gallant Friend also touched on the broader question of the relationship between North and South in Ireland. He said there was a new language being heard in Dublin. No words of mine should in any way prejudice the hope of old enmities being melted away into new friendliness. I entirely agree with what he said about the essential condition of that friendliness, but I believe that on both sides of the border there is a widespread desire that some of the hard words spoken in the past should disappear into limbo, and that this new co-operation, which must accept the existence of the border, should grow into a sweetened relationship throughout Ireland.
I regret that I cannot take up every one of the points which have been made by hon. Members, but I will certainly

make sure that each suggestion which has been put forward and which concerns in the main not myself but one of my right hon. Friends is brought to his attention. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was here when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South was referring to Purchase Tax on handkerchiefs. I will see that what he said about the shirt industry in Londonderry is mentioned to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has very much on his mind the question of plant breeding, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
Several of my hon. Friends asked about the Belfast dry dock. The Northern Ireland Government have put forward proposals for financial assistance to be given towards the cost of constructing a large new dry dock in Belfast. The largest dry dock in Belfast is the Thompson Dock, built fifty years ago, which is only of medium size and which cannot take vessels of more than 42,000 tons deadweight.
Proposals for a new and larger dock have been discussed in Northern Ireland for a good many years, and the case for giving Government aid towards the cost of this construction was considered last year by the Hall Committee. On the information before it at the time, the Hall Committee commented that it would require a very large outlay of money with a relatively small return in terms of employment. It regarded the provision of a dock like that as desirable rather than essential. The Committee's conclusion was that the construction of a large dock entirely at Government expense would not be justified, although, as Harland and Wolff is the only shipbuilding firm on the Lagan, it might be justifiable for the Government to contribute a larger share of the cost than elsewhere.
I remember saying at the end of our last debate, on 22nd November, that the Hall Report was not the final word. Since the Report was published there has been an important development. Harland and Wolff have decided to expand the repair and conversion side of their work to create additional employment in order to counter the falling employment on new


construction which, of course, is affecting shipyards everywhere. In these circumstances, the question of a new dry dock assumes much greater importance. It would add substantially to the amount of extra employment that could be provided. There can be no doubt that without a new dock expansion in ship-repairing would be handicapped.
In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are in full agreement with the view of the Northern Ireland Government that it is highly desirable that a new dock should be provided and that it should be substantially larger than the existing Thompson Dock. The United Kingdom Government have it in mind that it should, if possible, be so planned and constructed that if the need arises in future years it can be enlarged so as to take some of the largest ships being built.
At the moment, there are very few ships being built of exceptional size and the probability of a dock of vast proportions being needed in Belfast in the next few years seems too small to justify the very heavy extra cost which, in terms of extra employment, would be almost entirely unproductive. Her Majesty's Government propose therefore a new dock considerably larger than the Thompson Dock which will give Harland and Wolff, for as far ahead as can be foreseen, the facilities needed to expand the repair and conversion side of its work in the way it proposes. The day may come when there will be a requirement in Belfast for a dock of the very largest size if the percentage of huge ships, at present tiny, grows in the course of time. If so, the dock will be capable of enlargement to meet that future need, should it become a reality.
Any approved project for the construction of a large new dock would be eligible for financial assistance under Northern Ireland legislation. The level of assistance generally available to industrial development in Northern Ireland is more generous than in the rest of the United Kingdom, because of Northern Ireland's special problems.
The Northern Ireland Government will now no doubt wish to enter into further discussions with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, who in the past have provided all the dry docks in Belfast,

to work out detailed practical proposals for the early construction of a new dock substantially larger than the Thompson Dock from the outset, and capable of being extended to a very large size later on, including matters such as the responsibility for its construction and management, and the method of financing the whole project.
If satisfactory arrangements on these points can be made, we will be ready to see that financial assistance appropriate to a major Northern Ireland industrial development project is available. For this will be a major project; and over and above the employment which will be given during the construction period, it will create an invaluable permanent addition to the range of Northern Ireland's industrial capacity—the repair and conversion of big ships on the Lagan.

Mr. MacMaster: I suggested a dock of 150,000 tons. Would my right hon. Friend be a little more specific? Will it be at least larger than 100,000 tons?

Mr. Brooke: At this stage I had better not be too specific because, following my statement, the experts had better get on to the ground in Belfast and see how a dock substantially larger than 42,000 tons can be planned in such a way that in years to come, if need be, it can be enlarged to a size capable of taking the very biggest ships.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman at least tell us how large the ships will be which it is proposed the new dock will be able to take before it is enlarged in the second stage, 70,000 tons?

Mr. Brooke: What I said was that it would be a dock substantially larger—and I meant substantially larger—than the Thompson Dock. This is a dock which will need to be built by the Harbour Commissioners. Following on what I have said today, discussions between the Northern Ireland Government and the Harbour Commissioners can start. I am sure that consultants will be needed to report on what would be the ideal way to carry out this project, but at this stage and at this moment I am not prepared to give an exact figure of what size the new dock will be. Indeed, it would be wrong to give a precise figure before these further discussions have taken place.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION

7.17 p.m.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I now ask the House to turn to another subject. It will be recalled that the last time we had a debate on our accommodation in this House was more than three years ago, on31st March, 1960. As a result of what was said then, you, Mr. Speaker, set up a Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), to consider how the accommodation for hon. Members might be improved. As you yourself indicated in your statement to the House on 21st November, 1962, the Committee made a most valuable set of recommendations which must form the starting point of our debate this evening.
To facilitate our deliberations and in response to requests which were made to me by hon. Members from both sides of the House, I arranged last week for all hon. Members to receive a document prepared by my Ministry and entitled "Accommodation for the House of Commons". This document has basically two purposes. First, it gives details of the works which have already been executed by my Ministry, or which are in the course of being executed, to give effect to your Committee's recommendations. Thus, No. 1, Bridge Street, which my Ministry purchased, has been converted to provide for the time being much needed additional accommodation for hon. Members and their secretaries, for visitors, and for the Fees Office.
In addition, the accommodation for the Parliamentary Press and the B.B.C. has been extended. The Library has been expanded by using accommodation which you, Mr. Speaker, were good enough to make available from your residence. A new Lounge and Writing Room for hon. Members has been provided and the accommodation for the staff of the Refreshment Department has been substantially improved.
Finally, and this is the most important item, work will begin this month on the first phase of the major scheme to provide additional accommodation in the roof space above the Committee Rooms. This will be a substantial pro-

ject which is estimated to cost more than £500,000.
It can be carried out only gradually because, as I am sure the House will agree, it is vital to minimise disturbance and inconvenience to hon. Members. But I trust that if there are no unforeseen delays and difficulties the first phase will be completed next year, and the whole scheme in 1966. It will provide 51 rooms for individual Members plus accommodation for 25 secretaries, and, as the document points out, it will meet a variety of other requirements.
The second purpose of the document that I have presented is to give the House the most up-to-date information I possibly can about the ways in which we may provide an entirely new Parliamentary building on the other side of Bridge Street. The Committee which you, Mr. Speaker, appointed, recommended that 50,000 sq. ft. of accommodation should be provided as part of the general re-development of the site bounded by Bridge Street, the Embankment, Richmond Terrace and Whitehall and Parliament Street.
Parts of it are owned by the Metropolitan Police, including their headquarters at New Scotland Yard. Richmond Terrace is already owned by my Ministry. The remainder was designated for Crown Offices in 1961 by the London County Council, as planning authority, and is the subject of a Draft Compulsory Purchase Order. As is often the case, there have been a number of objections, on which in due course there will have to be a public inquiry, but we have already succeeded in acquiring part of the site by agreement.
I am sure the House will agree that the re-development of this large and important site of about 6 acres will be a formidable undertaking. It will be necessary to meet both the requirements of the House and the need for new permanent offices for the headquarters staff of Government Departments. It must also meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Police who are providing part of the land to be re-developed. Finally, we must consult the London County Council and the Royal Fine Art Commission.
In these circumstances, I am sure the House will agree that we cannot at this stage have cut and dried proposals for


the development of the Bridge Street-Parliament Street site. What I believe is important is that we should take into account the views of all concerned, and not least the views of hon. Members, at this early stage.
It was to provide a basis for discussion that Sir William Holford was commissioned to make a feasibility study. It is no more than that. His preliminary report, which is included in the document which hon. Members have received, is, I think we all agree, a valuable starting point, but it does not represent a firm plan for the development of the site, let alone a design. Nor is it a blueprint for action by the Government. I must emphasise that the Government have not decided to carry out a particular scheme at any particular estimate of cost. We are not committed to any part of the report. We have received it, and we are considering it, and I hope that today's debate will enable me to get the sense of the House on the question of the additional accommodation which will be provided for hon. Members on this Bridge Street-Parliament Street site.
It would not be possible for this House to formulate its wishes in the short time available to us this evening. I should like therefore to commend to the House a suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that there should be appointed an Advisory Committee through which the House could be kept in touch with developments affecting the new Parliamentary building, and which might enable the Government to have ready access to the views of the House as the project develops. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that if it were the wish of the House that such an Advisory Committee should be set up, you would be willing to appoint it.
I want to leave as much time as possible for hon. Members to give their views on the matters which are raised in the document, so I shall not therefore attempt to draw the attention of the House to the many important and interesting points which are contained in and arise out of Sir William Holford's report, but I should like to mention just six matters.
First, provided that my Ministry succeeds in acquiring the whole of the site, I envisage that we should have no

difficulty in meeting the requirements of the House in a building which would be effectively separate from any others there might be on the site. This building would not be used for any other purpose, in accordance with your Committee's recommendations.
Secondly, the building could, if the House agreed, be located at the south-east corner of the site. That is where No. 1, Bridge Street now stands, and in that situation it could, again as recommended by your Committee, have a private access to the Palace of Westminster by means of a tunnel under Bridge Street.
Thirdly, a building so sited could be linked with a neighbouring office block on the Bridge Street site so as to provide room for expansion on the upper floors of that block if it were ever needed. As the House will recall, the Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus recommended that the new building should be capable of expansion, and I think that extendibility is a good concept to import into modern building.
Fourthly, as your statement on 21st November made clear, Mr. Speaker, you were then advised that it was unlikely to be practicable to provide parking facilities on the scale proposed by your Committee, that is, one car parking space for every hon. Member who might have office accommodation in the new building. Sir William Holford's study has established that it would be practicable, but the cost would be very great—at least £1 million—and horn. Members would no doubt wish to consider whether such expenditure would be justified.
Fifthly, there is the question of the provision of shops and two public houses—very important to the life of Whitehall. When the London County Council designated the site for Crown Offices, we agreed that there-development should include adequate and suitably sited shops, restaurants and licensed premises. But I think it is very much for consideration whether in the final design any of them should be on the frontage of Bridge Street itself.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have not forgotten my undertaking mentioned in your statement to submit in due time for the prior approval of the House a model of the proposed building. But I think that


it will be clear from what I have said that I am by no means in a position to do so yet, and it is only after I have received the further views of the House and have carried forward other necessary consultations that it will be possible to consider in more detail the ultimate design of the building.
I think it is clear that with all the processes that must be gone through, not least the acquisition of the site, we are not likely to be able to begin demolition work before 1965, or to be able to complete the Parliamentary building before 1968. However, I can say that it is our present intention that the Parliamentary building and the police station will be given priority. They will be the first to be constructed.
I hope that the House will indicate what it feels about the general character of the Parliamentary building, and especially the design possibilities mentioned in paragraphs 17 and 22 of Sir William Holford's Report, and particularly the suggested treatment of the river frontage with its bays looking towards the Palace of Westminster so as to give as many as possible of the occupants a view of it. I believe, and I think it is probably generally accepted, that the architectural character of the Palace of Westminster must influence the design of the new building, but on this, as indeed on all other matters raised in the document, I shall welcome the opinions of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I should like on behalf of all hon. Members to thank the Minister for the consideration that he has shown us in preparing the document. At least everyone can know what we have in mind, and I am sure that the debate will be very much more informed because of that.
I come first to the need for a continuing accommodation committee. There is a great history of accommodation committees here. I notice that since 1831 nothing has really altered in the House of Commons, because in that year there was a
Report from the Select Committee appointed to consider the possibility of making the House of Commons more commodious and less unwholesome, and who were instructed to inquire in what manner adequate accom-

modation can best be afforded for its Members.
I suppose that we are considering that matter again this afternoon.
An accommodation committee under the chairmanship of Lord Winterton advised on the layout of the present Chamber, and from time to time we have had other advisory committees. I suggest Mr. Speaker that in your consideration of setting up a Committee we should have something a little stronger than an advisory committee. I think that we ought to have a Select Committee—that used to happen in the old days—strengthened with more powers, and reporting to the House. It is necessary that the architect should plan what hon. Members want. We do not at the end of the day want a building that we do not like and accommodation that does not suit us at all. The truth of this is shown in the appreciation, if that is the word, of Sir William Holford which seems to me to fly in the face of paragraph 26 of Mr. Speaker's Committee's Report on Accommodation, which says:
…over and above these detailed requirements, we wish to stress that in the designs for the new precinct, the needs of the House of Commons must take priority at every stage. If Members and others are to be encouraged to make use of the new precinct, it is of the greatest importance that the part of it which the House of Commons is to use shall have as much of the atmosphere of Parliament associated with it as the present Palace of Westminster has. We believe that it should have a dignified entrance which would be as much associated by the general public with Parliament as the St. Stephen's entrance is at present; and in particular that it should be in no way associated with any development for shops or any other commercial purpose.
We ask, too, that these facts should be constantly borne in mind. It has always been firmly in my mind that the planning of the Parliamentary precinct—I ask Members to look at the plan which has been given—should cover the whole frontage of Bridge Street. I object to the business of taking it round the Embankment, or trying to make room for the St. Stephen's Club. In view of the traffic along that part of the road we should take the opportunity to push the buildings right back off the road there. We have Parliament Square facing the New Palace Yard entrance. We should get something of depth before we consent to a building going up on the


other side. When we look at the plan we notice that Sir William has left plenty of room, with the tree in the middle, behind those buildings, and it is my view that the whole of the building ought to go back to give an atmosphere of space.
Traffic requirements should never be very far from our thoughts. If we imagine Bridge Street very much wider than it is, we see how much easier that would make it for traffic. Normally, if we take the Sessional Order, hon. Members like myself come over Westminster Bridge and we have to have a policeman to show us round. Hon. Members come down Whitehall on, say, a No. 12 bus and the traffic turns left into Bridge Street. We get the bulk of that traffic through, but we can see how we are being overtaken by developments. One has only to look at the Elephant and Castle site. That site stands condemned because we had not the vision to complete an underpass, which would have solved the problem. To plan any development of Bridge Street with the present width of road would be ridiculous. It would have almost a village atmosphere in 10 years' time. So the opportunity should be taken to widen Bridge Street.
I remind hon. Members that we are speaking about something which is in the heart of the Commonwealth. This is an opportunity. We want a noble building with an impressive entrance. We want the Parliamentary precinct to go right along that frontage, taking in the whole of the ground and first floors, and then we can have the depth of the other buildings behind to go further in if we need to develop. I do not want to raise political matters tonight, but if, for instance, we went into Europe the very nature of our Parliamentary institutions might alter. We might have to have a different sort of Parliamentary building for Committees and so on. Provision is made for too few Committees if we need to expand.
The building that we want in the Parliamentary precinct should match the present building—I do not mean that it should be Gothic—but it should be something more than Sir William has in mind. This plan seems to be nothing more than a shopping centre with a Parliamentary

annexe. It does not met the ideas that I have in mind. Whitehall is not a shopping centre, and need not be. If we want to have one or two public houses and shops we might be able to direct them round the corner nearer to Scotland Yard. One gentleman wrote to me—he was an architect—and suggested that one of the difficulties was that the new building, as envisaged by Sir William, is too vulnerable in the case of a siege. He had in mind demonstrations around Parliament Square. I do not know whether he thought that the proximity of Scotland Yard was an advantage or a disadvantage. For the life of me I cannot understand how the Minister of Works, who had a representative on the Committee, seems to have completely misunderstood the boldness of the nature of the Committee's conceptions.
The proposed Bridge Street site raises questions of principle beyond that of the building itself. I presume that these buildings will not come under the jurisdiction of the Lord Great Chamberlain because they will not be within the Palace of Westminster, and we can thank our lucky stars that we can go in and out of the building on a Saturday without the minions of the Lord Great Chamberlain challenging our right of access as they do now. Who is to decide whether it is a matter of emergency, or whether an hon. Member can take a party of his constituents over the place, or delegate it to a guide? This raises the question of a decision on unified and democratic control of the Palace of Westminster.
Incidentallly, I came across the third Report of the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices. Their Lordships are rather better furnished than we are about this sort of thing. They really do control the place and give directions to the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Committee recommended that air conditioning be provided as a matter of urgency for the Chamber and asked the Lord Great Chamberlain to request the Minister of Works to take the necessary steps to implement the recommendation. If we wanted that to be done, it would operate the other way round, and we should have to ask the Minister of Works to ask the permission of the Lord Great Chamberlain. This is the ridiculous situation that we have got into. I think that before the Parliamentary precinct is built


this matter of how we are going to control the place has to be settled. Since our debate in March, which the Leader of the House will remember, in which I made some suggestions about the Lord Great Chamberlain, I have been pursuing my researches. The last thing which I read on the subject was the tenth volume of the History of the Peerage which says:
It is deplorable that an office which dates from the Norman period and was granted in fee in 1133 should be split up and should descend in fractions, in accordance with rules invented by the judges in defiance of all precedents nearly 650 years later.
That is the definition of the office of the Lord Great Chamberlain. We ought to do better than that. On the day following the repudiation of his peerage and the emergence of Mr. Wedgwood Benn back again into this place it seems rather bad that we are considering things in a context where a new building might be considered to be the prerogative of an official dating back to the hereditary principle to 1133. This matter brooks no delay. We must get down to the unified control of the Palace of Westminster.
A suggestion was put up by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) in 1960 that the Lord Great Chamberlain's office should be so regulated that he would be limited to the control of the Robing Room. That seems to me to meet the historic concept of looking after the Monarch at a Coronation and leaving the up-to-date management of this place where it should belong.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The authority that I had for saying that was the Report of the Select Committee of 1901, dealing with the presence of the Sovereign in Parliament. It might help the hon. Member if I were to say that the then Secretary of State to the Lord Great Chamberlain was asked:
It is the tradition, is it not, that if the King sleeps in the Palace of Westminster he sleeps there in the Lord Great Chamberlain's house? For instance, when George IV slept in the Palace of Westminster before his Coronation (as he did) he slept, did he not, in the Lord Great Chamberlain's House?
The answer to that question was:
On that occasion he slept in the Speaker's House which was handed over to the Lord Great Chamberlain for the purpose upon the payment of a nominal fee.

The next question was,
But that is the tradition, at all events, is it not?
To which the reply was,
Yes, that he should sleep in the Lord Great Chamberlain's House.
Then the question was asked,
At that time the Lord Great Chamberlain's house was not big enough, and so he had to get another house, and he hired the Speaker's house for the occasion." A. "Yes." Q. "But the Sovereign has no prerogative or right, I take it, to make the Palace of Westminster a Royal Palace and live in it?" A. "No. The only room he has a right over is the Robing Room, and whenever we wanted to use the Robing Room we used to write to the Queen"—
that is, Queen Victoria—
to ask if Her Majesty had any objection to its being used.
The point is that the significance of the Lord Great Chamberlain's power with the Crown is simply to ensure that in the days when the Sovereign used to sleep in the Palace of Westminster on the night before his Coronation the position was properly regularised. Since then the Palace was burnt down, and a new one was built in 1884, and I thought our objects could be served by retaining just that power for the Lord Great Chamberlain.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member intends to be helpful, but he has made more of a speech than an intervention.
I am familiar with the Report of the Grand Select Committee of 1901, but that was an inquiry into the Lord Great Chamberlain's conduct then. A distinguished predecessor of Mr. Speaker—Mr. Speaker Lowther—complained before that Committee that a custodian, or the equivalent of a custodian then, had stopped him from coming into this place on a Saturday afternoon. We have not progressed much since then. But that Grand Select Committee was set up because on the occasion of the presence of the Monarch in the House there were about 101 ladies in the galleries of the House of Lords who were neither the relatives of peers nor the wives of Members. That has a familiar modern ring, too. People at the time wondered how they got there. I will not pursue that. Members of this House trying to get through from the other place were almost killed. They were considering accommodation in those days, and the Lord Great Chamberlain was there then as he is now.
I hope that it will be clearly understood that the Commons should have the right not only to take over for its own use the space on the site as the need becomes apparent, but to ensure that they have the control of the whole precinct. My view is that we should have delineated on a map a certain radius of this House, to be known as the precinct, and that everything within vision of the House should be determined not upon the say-so of a sub-committee of the L.C.C., or the Greater London Council, or whatever it is., but should be within the control of Parliament. A Joint Parliamentary Commission with planning authority should be set up to decide the sort of buildings of which this place should be the centre.
I reject Sir William Holford's plan, and I hope that the House will reject it, too, and that before we are through and make the final decision a proper model will be put before us. We have not gone beyond the point of no return, as the Minister has said, and I have no doubt that if the weight of opinion comes down in favour of a rejection of a plan, for the reasons that I have stated, the Minister will take due note of what is said.
I want to say a word about the question of the architect. I hope that what I say will not be taken as a reflection upon Sir William Holford, but I tend to detect at present a great dealof log-rolling among the top architects, and a certain laziness in the approach of Government Departments and other bodies to the architectural profession. They tend to choose the safe, well known and fashionable architects. In those circumstances, I wonder how we shall produce an inspired architect. I wonder whether it is too late to hold a competition on the subject of this site.
I should like to quote from the Daily Telegraph of 10th August, 1961—from Peterborough's column. The Peterborough of those days was the present Minister without Portfolio. It is not I who am saying this; it is what the right hon. Gentleman said. I told him that I was going to raise this matter. He said:
I see that the Minister of Power has just reappointed Sir William Holford a part-time member of the Central Electricity Generating Board. He advises on the design and siting of pylons and power stations.

It must be poor fun being Sir William's Private Secretary. A month ago he was re-elected President of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
He is Professor of Town Planning at University College, London, and a member of the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Historic Buildings Council and the advisory committee on buildings of special architectural and historic interest.
A few weeks ago Mr. Marples made him a member of his advisory group on urban traffic. He is a member of SPUR—the Society for the Promotion of Urban Renewal.
These and other occupations take half his time. His large private practice includes advisory work on St. Paul's precincts, Piccadilly Circus and Oxford's roads.
Much of his work lies in Commonwealth countries, to which he travels frequently.
One may wonder why so much has to fall on one man in an enormous profession—and whether it augurs well for the profession.
Incidentally, since then Sir William has become consultant architect for the new Kent University at Canterbury.
I mention this because I think that the choice of architect is not just something for the say-so of the Ministry. We are considering what will be an historic building, and I hope that we shall take great care to see that the architectural profession produces its best. In order to indicate that this is not just a personal view of Sir William Holford, Members may remember that the Sunday Telegraph carried a similar sort of paragraph about Sir Basil Spence. Perhaps I may read it. It said:
The fault lies with the committees who decide these matters. Just as the big name is chosen nine times out of ten to paint the commemorative portrait at the big price so the big name occurs first to people looking for an architect. Fortunately Sir Basil's achievement in buildings is superior to the achievement of fashionable portrait painters; and he would probably be the first to agree that other talents should be given more opportunity.
My appeal is that the Ministry of Works should take care to see that we get an inspired architect.
Another thing which I wish to urge strongly is that the architect finally selected should be asked to give the extent of his practice, both financial and operative. If he is to give the fullest personal attention to this all-important job, he should be able to guarantee dates and continuous personal attention. Nowadays delays in the progress of building operations, particularly of this size, often mean vastly increased expenditure. I


very much doubt whether professors with private practices which probably run into nearly £100 million, and who have jobs spread about all over the world, are the men to do this work. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether a competition is entirely out of place even at this stage, bearing in mind the long delay which will occur before we get down to doing the work. If that could happen, not only would there then be satisfaction among members of the profession but there would be a greater degree of public satisfaction.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I have listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has said. He has indicated that what he has in mind is a younger and more imaginative type of architect. But I should like him to say whether or not he agrees that the building erected should be of a traditional type, not a sort of Coventry Cathedral type but something suitable for the precincts.

Mr. Pannell: That seems to me to indicate the completely traditional mind—a pre-renunciation of peerages sort of mind.
I do not know whether I want a traditional type of building. I happen to believe that the noblest examples of a civic building in the London area can be seen in the Borough of Walthamstow where I was born. I was a member of the committee which accepted the plans and it was there that a young architect named Hepworth got his first great chance. Anyone who would like to seea fine example of a civic centre should go to Walthamstow and look at that building. Charles Gilbert Scott designed Liverpool Cathedral when he was 21. I do not want a certain level of dull competence. I do not want people to be able to look at a building and say, "That was planned by Sir So-and-So". In the days to come I want people to be able to look at the building erected here and not care who planned it but only to know that it rests easy on the eye and gives them satisfaction and pleasure. It does not matter what is the style. Not everyone likes the Gothic style of this building.
The late Mr. Walter Elliot, whom some of us remember with affection, was in Westminster Hall on that night during the war when this building was bombed

and burned. He was asked what the fire brigade should save—whether it should be this chamber or that chamber or Westminster Hall. He said, "Let the pseudo-Gothic go". He was right, and we all know it. So do not ask what I want. I am just a layman like the rest of us. I want something worthy to bequeath to our successors and so I think does every other hon. Member.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say a word about the builder selected to do the work in the roof space which is to commence in August. How was this contract allocated? Was it in competition on a price schedule employing Ministry of Works forms? Or was the contract just given to one of the big groups which are doing the railways, atomic power stations and so on? These are all things which hon. Members should consider. I have no doubt that other hon. Members will raise detailed considerations. I have attempted to discuss what I consider to be the bigger questions of principle which must concern this House.
I have been a member of most of the Committees on Accommodation set up during the last 14 years. It is a matter in which I have been deeply interested. To hon. Members who are newcomers to this House and who may think that the accommodation in this place is not as convenient as it ought to be, I would say that over the years there has been a great improvement. I think that those who serve on accommodation committees in the future should include a proportion of hon. Members who are serving in their first Parliament, because it is undoubtedly the fact that this place gets more and more rational the longer we are in it. I do not know whether or not that is a good thing. I hope that we shall go ahead with this work and that there will be no delay in appointing a Committee.
Most hon. Members are devoted to this place. We are glad to be in it. But we must also consider what the public think about it. If I have spoken of Sir William Hertford's appreciation with disrespect it was from no political motive. The view which I take, after having served on many Committees, is not the same as that of Sir William Holford. The vision in my mind is of a noble vista and not one consisting of shop fronts and that sort of thing. I have said that some


people outside try to paint this place as one in which there are squalid people meanly paid and meanly esteemed. I do not believe that we are such people. But that is something which we are not arguing today. I commend to the House the words used by King George V when declaring open the County Hall across the road. His Majesty said that our forefathers were right when they put up noble buildings and that a public authority meanly housed is all too often a public authority meanly esteemed.
I ask this House to grasp the opportunity to provide on this noble site in the centre of the Commonwealth a building suitable to bequeath not only to our own generation but to all those people who will look to this day and age with respect and, if I may say so, a building which will be a reflection of the taste of this generation.

7.57 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has painted a broad canvas and used a wide brush. I wish to be rather more detailed in what I have to say, although later I may say a word or two about what was said by the hon. Gentleman.
I was appointed by Mr. Speaker to be Chairman of the ad hoc Committee on Accommodation. The more we looked round this place and the more we tried to find additional accommodation for hon. Members the more we found that it was quite impossible to do so in a satisfactory manner. The Gothic nature of the architecture made it quite impossible to split rooms either vertically or horizontally. The more we examined the place the greater we found the difficulty to turn out anyone who was accommodated here. But we did our best, and it is, I think, a reflection on our Victorian forefathers that although they ensured that the style and character of the buildings in which we work were noble and expansive, they had absolutely no regard for the comfort of the staff.
The situation in respect of rest rooms and so on for waitresses in the cafeteria and other members of the staff is appalling. Although we were able to make substantial improvements, I still do not consider the accommodation for the staff

to be satisfactory. We have done the best we could under the most difficult circumstances. While on the subject of staff I must say that I am afraid that this generation also has made mistakes. When the new building was erected in 1950 the Press Gallery was, on the whole, treated extremely well. The members of the Press Gallery have extensive accommodation behind the Gallery. But the Press Gallery staff was completely neglected. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that the waiters and waitresses who wait on members of the Press Gallery have to eat in the same room as members of the Gallery but at different times. The rest room and changing room for the female staff was a little cupboard with a roof light. We have been able to make some small extensions there, but I think that at the time when this Chamber was rebuilt in 1950 more thought ought to have been given to the staff.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the hon. Member be entirely happy that in the Press Gallery 20 men of the Press are working together in the same room?

Sir J. Duncan: If the hon. Member will hold his patience a little longer, I shall deal with the Press Gallery itself almost at once.
I refer next to the Library. It was very overcrowded, particularly in regard to storage. I think the whole House will be grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing us to use seven rooms and some cellars for the storage of books. In the roof space additional rack space will be available for the storage of books in the corridor running at right-angles to the new rooms to be erected there. On the whole I think the Library will be satisfactorily dealt with for some years to come, particularly with the two rooms which we took from Ministers.
I now turn to the accommodation for the Press. We were able to enlarge the B.B.C. room a little. We increased its accommodation by 50 per cent., the Report says. Fifty per cent. of a small area is not very much. However, it is probably enough. We were able to get agreement that the ordinary Press should use the Commonwealth Press Room when the Commonwealth Press is not using it—if I remember rightly, after 6 p.m. That is a quiet room where people can write


their paragraphs and articles in comparative peace. There was a suggestion that there should be some extra space for the Press in the new building. It was represented to us that the Sunday Press did not need the accommodation behind the Press Gallery nearly so much or so urgently and that its members could write their despatches and articles outside the immediate precincts of the Chamber. So we have recommended the allocation of a place for them and, in addition, we gave them room 13, which I think they have now.
Nevertheless it is true that with the increasing number of people who attend in the Press Gallery there is urgent need for more room. I point out, however, that they are here to work. One suggestion that has been made was that they should have a recreation room. I think that would make them more comfortably off than Members of Parliament, so I am not in favour of that. When the roof space is completed there will be—only one floor down, but nevertheless at some reasonable distance from the Press accommodation—the bedroom of the Clerk of the House, two Clerks Assistants' rooms and a bathroom, which is not necessary. I ask my right hon. Friend that when we get the roof space erected consideration should be given, maybe by the Advisory Committee to which he has referred, as to how those rooms should be allocated. One of them is a big room. Originally we thought it would be useful as a Minister's room. It might be possible, as all the Ministers are now housed, to give the Press fairly considerably increased accommodation if we could make those rooms available.
In the roof space there will be accommodation for the Clerk of the House. As the former Clerk has now retired, perhaps I can relate what we found. He has to be here all the time the House is sitting and has to be available to Mr. Speaker, sometimes urgently, for consultation. We found that he had a bedroom upstairs but had absolutely no method of cooking his breakfast except by one gas ring. I hope the House will agree with our recommendations—as the Government have agreed—that the Clerk of the House should have a flat in the roof space. I think that would be dignified. It would enable him to be

nearer, and he would be available night and day, as he has to be during the sittings of the House.
Then we considered the Fees Office. We had a bit of a battle about the Fees Office. It was over in Westminster Hall. We moved it into the temporary building, No. 1 Bridge Street. I think that has been very satisfactory. The accommodation is better. It is a little further for hon. Members to go, but it will be nearer when it goes into the roof space. So I hope that recommendation will be generally accepted as an improvement. By doing that we have given desk space for hon. Members in Westminster Hall.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: The hon. Member has said, and I agree, that it seems perfectly satisfactory for the Fees Office to be over the road, but he said that eventually it will come back to this building. If it is perfectly satisfactory for the Fees Office to be across the road, why should it come back and the same situation arise again?

Sir J. Duncan: I shall explain why we want it fairly near to these premises.
The remainder of the space will be devoted to hon. Members and their secretaries and will accommodate 51 of us. We have had a pilot scheme over at Bridge Street, which has been generally accepted. I am glad to know that hon. Members who have been using it have been pleased with it. With the experience of that pilot scheme we shall be able, when the accommodation in the roof space is available, to decide what sort of accommodation, whether single or double rooms, with telephones inside or outside, with lockers for themselves and their secretaries, hon. Members should have. That again shows an improvement.
I should like to express some general considerations about this building. It is impossible to do anything very different with this building. The cloisters are an example. Hon. Members who have no secretaries can be accommodated at the south end of 'the cloisters, where they can retire to write letters in the morning and to have easy access. The needs of hon. Members seem very variable indeed. Some require everything. Some require a telephone in their room, a secretary, a locker, everything.


The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who I see is smiling, wants all sorts of things, including a central dictation system. On the other hand, many Members do not want anything——

Mr. C. Pannell: Except to be left alone.

Sir J. Duncan: For instance, there are lawyers who do all their work, including their constituency work, at home, in their offices in the Temple, or wherever they live. There are businessmen—I hope there always will be businessmen in this House—who do their constituency business in their offices. There are others who are quite content to use the basement rooms and, as I do, to sit on a divan to dictate letters in the passage way. The needs of Members are varied and we have tried to make recommendations which would meet those varied needs.
Bearing in mind the varying needs, I have worked out the accommodation to be something like this: there will be 51 rooms in the roof space and eight at the south side of the cloisters. There will be 280 single rooms in the new building in Bridge Street. That is 339 rooms. There are about 100 Ministers and P.P.S.s who do not want additional rooms because they can either work in their Ministries or in their Ministers' rooms, and every Minister has a room. There are the businessmen, lawyers and those who live near home and who do their work at home. In addition, there is the Library. There are the Lobbies on either side of the Chamber; there are basement rooms and, of course, there is the old Fees Office.
On the whole, I think that when these schemes are complete the Committee will have met the reasonable needs of everybody, and ought as time goes on to continue to meet the varying needs of Members. It seems to me that if we can look forward to the fairly quick provision of a Parliamentary precinct on Bridge Street it should not be too long before every Member has the sort of accommodation that he thinks he needs. But there is no doubt that as more double accommodation becomes available, and as the personnel of Parliament changes over the years, additional needs may arise, and that is why we were keen to see that in

the plan there should be room for expansion in case the need increases as the years go by.
I should like to say a word on the Holford plan. As the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said, we do not want shops on the Bridge Street frontage. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it was a fairly lively Committee and that very often three or four persons were talking at the same time. However, we did agree that there should not be shops on the frontage. Nevertheless, I am attracted to a shopping precinct. I like the idea of being able to shop away from the noise of traffic. Of course, this plan is only a first shot, and I hope that Sir William Holford and the Minister will consider moving the whole thing round a bit and eliminating the front row of shops but at the same time trying to maintain a shopping precinct.
I think that a car park, although it would be expensive, is necessary. I know it is true that at the moment, even on a three-line Whip, one can always park one's car in New Palace Yard, but more and more people are having cars and it is an advantage in London to have a car which one can park. Therefore, if the Government are prepared to face the extra expense, I think it is advisable to have a car park underneath.
The other matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred—though this was far beyond our terms of reference—was a unified and democratic control of the whole of this House. I think that requires far more consideration than has been given to it.

Mr. C. Pannell: I pointed out—and the hon. Gentleman should face this—that this new Parliamentary precinct will not be within the control of the Lord Great Chamberlain. It would be rather ridiculous, therefore, if, while this Palace is in the control of the Lord Great Chamberlain, we were to have a different sort of control across the road. That is the reason for unifying the control somehow.

Sir J. Duncan: I gathered that point from the hon. Gentleman's original speech. Of course, we go back a long way in history. My hon. Friend the


Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) might have been the Lord Great Chamberlain except for some accident, I believe.

Mr. C. Pannell: He is related.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Not yet.

Sir J. Duncan: Not yet. I remember his speech a year or two ago. There is history, and there is a practice brought out by tradition which, although it is complicated, seems to work.

Mr. C. Pannell: It does not.

Sir J. Duncan: I think this system works. There are naturally shortcomings in any system—for instance, if one wants to get in here on a Sunday afternoon and one finds difficulty in doing so; but that sort of thing could easily be ironed out. But the hon. Gentleman wants what he calls unified and democratic control—a sort of Kitchen Committee or House Committee running this House. I think that suggestion requires much more consideration than has been given to it up to now.
We have various departments—the Speaker's Department, the Serjeant-at-Arms Department, the Office of Works, and so on. They all have their jobs to do. It is a little complicated to understand, but it works. But if we are to have superseding all that a House Committee which is to try to run the whole thing, I very much doubt if it would work so well. Therefore, although I hope I am just as good a democrat as the hon. Member for Leeds, West, I think democracy can go too far. We have got to have a certain amount of discipline and order in this place, and we want to have it done for us. I do not think it is the job of the elected Members of Parliament to have a Kitchen Committee, a Library Committee and various other committees, and, superimposed on all that, a House Committee, because it seems to me that we shall be devoting far too much of our own time looking after ourselves when we really ought to be spending far more of our time looking after the country and the Commonwealth.
I would like far more consideration to be given to this proposal before any change is made, in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely has read out of a book written in

1901, because it works now; and I would be sorry to see a new system set up, under which, no doubt, there would be problems which could not be so easily resolved and where the clear demarcation which exists today between the various departments might be overridden by some House Committee or something like that which would get at cross purposes.
I have mentioned the Commonwealth. The only recommendation of the Committee which was not accepted was the recommendation to remove the offices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association across the road. I was prepared, as I believe the Committee was, to allocate it very good accommodation. I think 2,000 sq. ft. was in our minds. The Association could do what it liked with it. It could have a suitable meeting hall and modern offices, and, as it was to be part of the Parliamentary precinct, it seemed a marvellous chance, with the increasing use of the existing offices and the enormous amount of work that is being done for the Commonwealth, for the Association to have something really good so that Commonwealth visitors could be suitably housed and entertained. If they had to address meetings they could have sizeable meetings rather than the comparatively small and rather unattractive facilities at Westminster Hall. But the big guns were against us. That recommendation was turned down.
I suggest that the Government should reconsider that, because I believe that we could give much more dignified accommodation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association inside Parliament as part of the Parliamentary precincts, if it accepted that offer, rather than for the Association to continue rather hugger mugger in the office it now has. It has no chance of expansion there. I know that there are great sentimental ties involved in coming into Westminster Hall and feeling that one is in Parliament. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and its officers are dyed-in-the-wood reactionaries. If only they would look forward twenty or thirty years, because we are working for the long-term future, I believe that in the new building the Association would have far better and more satisfactory accommodation which would be just as dignified and just as much part of Parliament as that which it now has.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I have found the debate up to now deeply depressing. If an industrial worker had to put up with the conditions that M.P.s put up with, there would be a strike within 24 hours. The simple fact is that this building is not equipped to allow Parliament to operate efficiently. No amount of patching, modernisation and extending will radically alter that position.
When I came here first in 1950, I was given the key to a locker which was no bigger than that which I had at school. That was the only accommodation, the only amenity, that I had in the building. I sought what solace I could in the Library. A Member is thrown in at the deep end when he comes here. Nobody bothers to tell him or show him the way round. He has to find out for himself. I made my way quickly to the Library. I cannot speak too highly of the service of the staff in the Library. I do not think that they could be more helpful or more courteous or more friendly than they are. Within the limits of their resources, they give the very best possible service to Members. One cannot complain about that. However, I must say that the resources that they can offer to Members are woefully inadequate.
In my view, the back bench Member is faced with an impossible task. He represents no challenge whatever to the Executive. Indeed, the most disturbing constitutional development of the last few years has been the enormous growth of the Executive's power vis-à-vis the legislature. This debate is on a much narrower front than that broad issue, but it is part and parcel of the same problem, because the Executive has a vested interest in keeping the individual Member of the legislature in a fairly helpless and harmless position. The average back bench Member is not more than 10 per cent. efficient. He is the equivalent of a humdrum, pen-pushing clerk-cum-welfare officer. He is treated with scarcely veiled contempt by the Executive, sometimes by civil servants, and by the public at large. This has much to do with the conditions under which we work in this building.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said, over the years things have improved. I now

have an addition to my locker. I have a little desk upstairs right at the top. I go up in an old, antiquated lift and I eventually get right to the top of the building. I am with another seven Members in a room the size of the average dining room in the average council house. If the factory inspector, or whoever is responsible for this kind of accommodation, came here, he would prosecute. All the time, every day in midsummer, we have to have artificial light. We must switch the lights on. I sit furthest away from a very narrow window and I must put the lights on on a day like today or yesterday. The room is ideal for a suicide. If I could squeeze out of the window, I could throw myself, and sometimes feel like doing so, into the Thames. The room is wholly inadequate for an effective Member of what we choose to regard as the Mother of Parliaments.
The blunt fact is that this building was not built and is not equipped for a twentieth century rôle. I view the Holford Report with no great enthusiasm, rather with a considerable amount of dismay. It reminds me very much of the unfortunate, rather ridiculous, and certainly expensive exercise in Downing Street. What is needed here and what was needed there is a completely new start, a completely new modern building, severely functional, designed to ensure that the efficiency of the legislature is not thwarted or jeopardised by purely physical shortcomings in its working conditions.
I go further and assert that, if we are to make any great impact on the problem of the imbalance between the development in London and the South-East and that in the rest of Britain, the Government must give a much bigger, bolder and more imaginative lead than they have done hitherto. I tried to raise this point at Question Time this afternoon and received a lot of rather silly laughter from the other side for doing so. I suggested that the Government should set up an inquiry into the advisability and desirability of shifting the centre of government entirely from London into the Provinces.
An excellent article on this subject appeared in the Economist on 8th December last year. I hope that the Minister read it. I wish that he would act on it. The fact that the centre of


administration is in London acts as an extremely powerful magnet for all kinds of other institutions—the national Press, foreign embassies, public relations firms, pressure group head offices, the headquarters of big businesses, and so on. They all congregate in London because this is where the big decisions, particularly big Governmental decisions, are taken.
The Government appeal to others to get out of London, but they are not prepared to set an example. Periodically they quote figures to show that a few civil servants have been dispersed to other parts, but what happens to the accommodation that is thereby released? I suspect that it is taken over by other office employees and we are, therefore, back in precisely the same position. In other words, the Government are making no impact on this problem of congestion in central London.
In the article in the Economist, entitled "North to Elizabetha" it is suggested that we should start building a new administrative capital for Britain. It refers to
…a Washington, a Canberra, a Berne, a Brazilia—somewhere north of the Trent.
It goes on to suggest that we should transfer the Queen, Parliament, Government Departments and their civil servants there. It suggests a site somewhere between York and Harrogate, midway between Thames-side and Clyde-side—a site with extremely good communications north and south and near to the industrial heart of Britain.
This is an enormously imaginative and bold project—much too bold, I think, for the Government of the day. It would undoubtedly present a tremendous challenge to architects, engineers, builders, town planners and others and it would strike a powerful and sorely needed blow at the idea that we in this country are hide-bound by tradition and conservatism through an undue reverence for everything that is old, musty and riddled with dry rot and woodworm. The kindest thing that can be said about this building is that it is quaint, that it has many peculiar traditions and that it has certain features of considerable historic significance. But it is certainly not what it should be—an efficient workshop for legislators.
As I said at the outset, no modifications or alterations will drastically alter that situation. If we accepted the desirability of creating a new administrative city further north it would undo the continuing imbalance in the country as between the South-East and the remainder. It would provide an enormous psychological uplift to the North which, heaven knows, we need. There are two nations in this country, despite what the Prime Minister and any one else may say. One has only to meet and talk to people in the North to understand how they feel. I sincerely believe that the sort of project the Economist and others have suggested would have an enormous influence on the people of the North and on the institutions which congregate around and about the centre of administration.
As an ordinary back bench Member I have suffered over the years increasingly from the feelings of frustration, helplessness and impotence. I am sure that those feelings are shared by a good many, if not most, of my colleagues. They originate in large measure from the environment in which we work. Nothing so far suggested by the Minister, Sir William Holford or the Committee on Accommodation has been within measurable distance of solving the problem with which we as back benchers are continually faced.

8.35 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I should like to make a contribution to this debate as the Chairman for the time being of Mr. Speaker's Advisory Committee on the Library. I wish to take as the peg for what I want to say, first, a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), and, secondly, some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton).
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus referred to the expansion of the accommodation for the Library which had been made possible by Mr. Speaker putting seven rooms in his residence at the disposal of the Library. He went on to say that he hoped that the Library would now be adequately housed for some years to come. If the Library services are regarded as adequate by the House, and if they are to be continued at about


the present level with about the present staff, it is perfectly true that it is adequately housed. But the point that I wish to make is that raised in the early part of his speech by the hon. Member for Fife, West, namely, is the House satisfied with the secretarial and research facilities which are at the disposal of back bench Members in carrying out their constitutional duties of supervising, scrutinising and criticising the executive Government of the day?
I believe that there is a balance of opinion for and against that view in the House. But, if the general view of back benchers on both sides is that they are inadequately equipped for their constitutional duty, this is the time that we must consider how far extended secretarial services, either by the creation of some new type of secretariat or by the extension of the services at present rendered by the Library staff, should be provided and housed. If there is to be an extension of the Library staff, obviously its members will require extended accommodation. If we do not take this opportunity of making that need clear, we shall find that the lack of accommodation will prevent an extension of the services which back benchers may feel they need.
I hope that some hon. Members have familiarised themselves with the Report which the Advisory Committee sent to Mr. Speaker a few weeks ago and which he has been good enough to make available to Members by putting copies in the Library. So that they may be on the record, I ask the House to bear with me while I read two short extracts from that Report because they illustrate what is in the Advisory Committee's mind, and they indicate the decisions or opinions that we want from the House in order that we may look to the future development of the Library.
In the middle of our Report, on page 4, we put two points of view which have been put to us by hon. Members. We said that there were some hon. Members who
claim in effect that the present Library provides, say, 90 per cent. of the reasonable needs of, say, 90 per cent. of the present Members, and that it would be unreasonable and unecessary to provide a 100 per cent. service at perhaps double the present cost in order to satisfy the more rarefied demands of perhaps

10 per cent. only of the Membership of the House.
Then, we put the conflicting view on the other side, the view that the hon. Member has just put to us. We said:
Other Members take a contrary view. They declare that the work of Members is nowadays both more important and infinitely more complicated and pressing than ever before; yet they are too poorly paid and too inadequately equipped to perform it properly. They deny that they wish to have speeches prepared or services approximating to the Library of Congress scale. On the other hand, they point to the enormously strong and well-qualified Civil Service which backs the Executive…and claim that if the function of the House of Commons is to criticise the Government effectively it must be equipped with necessary means of comparable quality.
That is the view of some of those who made representations to the Committee. The earlier view is the opinion of others. The Committee was at this stage unwilling to decide between them.
Nevertheless, we thought it useful to compare the services which the Library of Congress renders to Congress in the United States of America with the services which our Library renders here. They can be summarised by saying that the Legislative Reference Service alone in Washington—the service that serves particularly the legislature—has a budget of 2 million dollars a year, whereas the budget of our Library here is £56,000 a year. We have had certain proposals by hon. Members to increase the services, and they would bring our budget up to £86,000, or about one-eighth of the budget of the Library in Washington.
It is not for me, as, indeed, the Members of my Committee did not feel that it was for them as an Advisory Committee, to make recommendations to Mr. Speaker or to the House, but——

Mr. Richard Marsh: Does not the hon. Member think that as well as cost, an even more striking comparison can be made between our services and those of the Library of Congress in that in our Library in the new Session the research facilities are to be expanded so that we have seven research workers, compared with the Library of Congress with its 215? I appreciate the argument that 215 may be too many, but seven shared between 630 Members is, possibly, too few.

Sir H. Linstead: Yes. The difference in staff numbers is another reference by


which the difference of the services can be measured.
It would be appropriate if I referred specifically to four proposals for new services which were made to my Committee by hon. Members. They are services which, if the House decides that it needs them, would require additional accommodation. One was an expansion of the research services to include the provision of specialists, particularly to deal with scientific and technical matters. The second was an abstracting service to provide factual digests of documents which hon. Members do not have time to read. The third was translating facilities, and the fourth was a comprehensive Press-cuttings library. So far as we can judge, these four services together would cost about another £50,000 per annum, and they would also require additional accommodation.
I ask the House to help the Committee and to help Mr. Speaker in his task of directing the Library services by giving an indication of its feelings both for and against an extension of the research and specialist services along the lines which I have mentioned.
The questions which I have noted as those which we should answer are the following. Is the function of the House still to scrutinise and criticise the Executive and to ventilate grievances? If so, is its equipment adequate to discharge that task? If not, how is the equipment to be made available? Is it to be through the Library? Is it to be by creating a new form of secretariat? How is it to be done?
Any development of this kind is an uphill task because neither the Executive for the time being nor the potential Executive for some future time is particularly anxious to see a large reinforcement of the facilities available to back benchers, and we have to face that fact. The most we can hope for is a benevolent inertia.
One hon. Gentleman said that the Government must give a lead. I think that in a matter of this kind it is the House which must give a lead, and the House must indicate what it wants and what it does not want, and then it will have to push extremely hard, probably against both Front benches, to achieve what it wants.
I wonder if the House will allow me to make one reference to a suggestion by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). He was talking about the choice of architect. I agree with him that this is an extremely important matter. I do not agree with him that we must avoid architects with big names, because very often the man who has got a big name has got it because he can do a big job, and I join issue with him when he says that he thinks that this is something which should be open to competition. I very much doubt that.
If it is a building of a well-known type, such as a school or a town hall or a cinema, it is something very suitable for architectural competition, but when it is a highly-specialised building I think the owners have to take their courage in both hands and choose an architect themselves. The architect has got to live with the people who are going to use the building. We could not set out, in the conditions which are the preliminaries for a competition, all the details of the building; we could not do it with sufficient explicitness to enable a competition to produce a really satisfactory plan. We have to choose the man ourselves and he has got to make himself part of the life of the building so that he can understand it and its functions from the ground upwards and so comprehend just exactly what it is that the users of the building need.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that his argument means that the architect must be employed full-time on the job without any other commitments?

Sir H. Linstead: No, I certainly would not agree with the hon. Gentleman in that, because it is very often the man with a wide practice, who knows how to organise the many other specialists who have to be employed, who can make a better job of it than the man who is expected to concentrate solely on one project.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: A large number of people on both sides of the House will have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) with a great deal of satisfaction, particularly after the earlier speech of one of his colleagues who seemed to have insulated himself against the twentieth


century to an extent one would not have thought possible.
It is worth noting that a number of this morning's newspapers discussed this matter, probably in anticipation of this night's debate, and they discussed it on the basis whether Parliament is doing the job it really ought to do. The very fact that that can be discussed really ought to be a matter of serious concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are faced with the possibility—indeed, the certainty now—of an extension of the buildings of this place, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) was right when he said that this was an opportunity we ought to take to look very seriously indeed at the way in which we can improve our facilities.
There are two ways of looking at this, We can argue whether there is enough room for making pots of tea, whether there is room for people to hang up their coats and whether there is room for them to park their cars. All these things are, no doubt, important, but I believe, and I think there is a large body of opinion which believes, that this House in its present state, with its present organisation, with the facilities which it provides—and those facilities are determined very largely by the accommodation available—is incapable of challenging the Executive as it should, incapable of judging the Executive, because Members of Parliament are not equipped.
One of the things which worried me about the speech of the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) was the attitude that he seemed to have, which is very common throughout this place, that "it is rather quaint", "a nice place to be in", "it has good traditions", "it goes along not too badly", and "there may be some things wrong with it, but nothing is fundamentally wrong".
I interrupted the hon. Member on the question of the Library facilities, which I think constitute our most important problem. The House provides for 630 Members of Parliament, seven graduate research workers. How can back bench Members of Parliament challenge the Executive on the basis of sharing seven research workers between 630 of them?
Any Member of Parliament who finds the Library adequate cannot be doing a proper job.
It is a very brilliant Member of Parliament who, without any previous experience or training, can take on any Minister, with all the help and advice of the civil servants behind him, by popping into his local library or the Library of the House and looking up a few books. Research is an important and skilled job, and a large section of the membership of this House is incapable of doing it. This is as much a specialised job as being a lawyer or an engine fitter.
The Library in the Congress of the United States provides services which some of us would not want. Hon. Members ought to write their own speeches. It is wrong that an elected Member of Parliament should be able to get someone to write his speeches for him. The Minister in the previous debate was a damaging indictment of people who come here and read speeches which have been written for them. For instance, no hon. Member who is not in the aircraft industry can seriously take part in a debate on that industry without having access to information produced on an expert and objective basis. He can, of course, go to the aircraft industry and obtain information, but this is, naturally and honourably, biased information. If the Member of Parliament is a scientist, he is all right, but I am not a scientist and, as an elected Member of Parliament, I believe that science is an important influence in this country.
There is no one in this House to whom one can go to obtain information or a brief on particular subjects. This facility is not a trimming. It is part of the tools of trade of Members of Parliament. This House can do as good a job as any other elected body if it has the facilities. What hon. Member who employs people in his office would say, as one hon. Member said, that they could do their letters on a bench in a corridor, as Members of Parliament do their letters on benches in one of the Lobbies? If I ran an organisation and found a member of my staff dictating letters on a bench in the foyer, I would kick him out, believing that that is not the way one works. It is certainly not the way a British Member of Parliament ought to work.
I hope that in the new building we shall have other things besides extended Library facilities. I see no reason why we should not have some form of centralised dictating service where Members can pick up a telephone and dictate to a central pool certainly their most urgent correspondence. There are hon. Members who are lawyers and businessmen, wealthy men, who have secretaries, and some trade unions provide secretarial assistance. But can it honestly be suggested that an hon. Member with no other income, whose home is outside London—I am not one of those; I have a London constituency and am relatively comfortable—can afford a secretary or any secretarial assistance out of a net income of, probably, about £900 a year? Can he do that after he has paid a board and lodging allowance for four nights a week in London? Can it be said that a Member of Parliament who has no secretarial assistance and has no real filing facilities—if he is lucky he may have a filing cabinet somewhere, but no one to do anything with it—and who leaves this place for a dingy bed sitter in Kennington Oval can conceivably do an adequate job?
This brings me to another factor. I see no reason why the House should not seize the opportunity to face the problem of Members who do not live in London and who have no other incomes than their Parliamentary salaries. There is no reason why there should not be hostel accommodation for them. I do not ask for palatial residences, but an hon. Member in such circumstances should have available a bedroom and, possibly, a sitting room as well. This accommodation could be provided either in a Government hostel or by the Ministry of Public Building and Works taking over accommodation in an existing hotel.
We must get to the stage of wondering whether we are not ourselves devaluing Parliament by the way in which we treat hon. Members. All too often it sounds as though, when we make speeches like this, people think we are trying to get more comfort and cushy places for ourselves. Everyone likes comfortable surroundings in which to work but that is not the point here. There is something wrong if an hon. Member whose home is not in London cannot even entertain a foreign delegate for a

meal or offer any hospitality, or even have a room in which to carry on a discussion. Instead, such hon. Members have to spend long hours travelling backwards and forwards to cheap bedsitters and live most of their day in this building, because there is nowhere else to go, in conditions of extreme discomfort. This is the sort of thing we should deal with in the new building.
Another thing I would like to see—it is surely not revolutionary in 1963—is a conference room or rooms in the new building equipped for simultaneous translation. It should be possible for Members of other Parliaments to meet us for discussions. As far as I know, without the special permission of the Minister of Public Building and Works—who is very helpful—there is nowhere where the many organisations to which hon. Members belong can gather and where there is simultaneous translation equipment.
Many hon. Members on both sides do not speak foreign languages. There are some I have heard speaking foreign languages who would do better if they did not. There should be meetings and discussions on such subjects as whether we go in or out of Europe. Such conferences are everyday activities in a European Parliament and surely we should have somewhere in our precincts where conferences of this type can take place.
Can we please get away in this discussion from the idea of adding a little more space for someone to sit down when waiting to go home? Let us get down to ensuring that this Parliament is a place, first and foremost, in which it is possible to operate effectively against the Executive. This is a vital thing to back benchers on both sides of the House. It is not a factor commending itself to the Front Bench. Ministers do not like to be challenged: I would not do so if I were a Minister—which is a long way away.
No Minister will dig his own grave by equipping people who might be awkward. That is the real reason behind the lack of facilities so far, although Ministers naturally find others. I hope that we will be able to produce these circumstances in the new building and will do so determined to use these new facilities in an effort to make the British Parliament much more effective than it is.

9.0 p.m.

Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: Ido not want to go over the points which have already been made, although I should like to have said something about the plan produced by Sir William Holford. I agree in general with the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan).
There are three points which I should like to cover, one of which has already been made—I have to say it—from the other side of the House. As both sides of the House feel very strongly about this issue, it will do no harm to repeat it. It is to express the hope that in the new buildings there will be facilities for simultaneous translation. I have in my hand a letter from the Ministry of Public Building and Works saying that it can now make arrangements for this apparatus to be hired, installed and taken away, all of which is laborious and extremely expensive. It should be installed in Committee Rooms and available as a permanent fitting for permanent use as an ordinary tool available for party meetings, inter-party meetings or international meetings of any kind. Houses of Parliament abroad, certainly in Europe, can produce these facilities immediately as a matter of course.
In his plan, talking of the floor space for the Parliamentary building, Sir William Holford says that the plan is a little higher than the minimum asked for. If he had said that it was a little higher than the maximum, I would have been a great deal happier.

Mr. Rippon: I hope that my hon. Friend will be fair to Sir William Holford. The proposition put to him was to prepare a feasibility study on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) was chairman. They referred to 50,000 sq. feet. If the Committee or the House had asked for more, no doubt he would have put forward a different proposal. He has done what he was asked. In fact, he has done a little more.

Mrs. Emmet: I quite understand that, but I was on that Committee and we also recommended that there should be room for expansion, and that is what I want to emphasise.

Mr. Rippon: He has done that, too. I hoped that I had made it clear that the design allowed for expansion.

Mrs. Emmet: I am trying to stress that. If a certain amount of floor space has been calculated as being sufficient for the time being, one knows that as the years go on inevitably one finds that one has not allowed for a number of things which are necessary.
Hon. Members have made their criticisms of the outside of the building, but I want to deal with one or two internal matters. I hope very much that the architect will employ an up-to-date decorator for the inside of the Parliamentary building, whatever is done elsewhere. Going around the excellent Ministry of Works buildings, I am sometimes shocked by the obvious domestic mistakes made inside them and the not always up-to-date methods of decoration—dust ledges and things of that sort. Even our ancestors, when they made wooden panels, remembered to slope them down so that they did not collect dust. Interior arrangements need careful study. There are excellent new forms of flooring and wall covering and coping, and I hope that these methods will be carefully considered for the new building.
Looking forward to the days when we might not find it so easy to recruit the excellent ladies who come here at night and clean out our House for us—how they do it I do not know—I hope that some up-to-date method of cleaning suction in all the rooms will be considered. I am certain that as the years go on these things will become more difficult and now is the time to consider how to deal with them.
I also hope that we shall make arrangements for the convenience of the police, the secretaries and the domestic servants, from the point of view of hygiene. These people are not always considered, and I think that we should go into these problems very carefully. It might also be a good idea to provide such an elementary thing as a first-aid room in the new building. At the moment we have no such facility.
Those are domestic suggestions. I think it is a good idea to make them now, otherwise they might be overlooked. Although my right hon. Friend may have


disagreed with the beginning of ray speech, I am sure that he will feel more sympathetic towards my latter remarks.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The horn. Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) has brought a housewife's common sense to the debate in the suggestions that she has made for the Minister to consider when the new building is being constructed. I propose to follow the hon. Lady on two important points. First, on the question of a first aid-room. Secondly, on the question of the staff.
My speech tonight is a continuation of the speech that I made on 31st March, 1960. On that occasion I was allowed four minutes, at four minutes to nine o'clock, in which to make my speech. I was able to start it then, and I hope, in the few minutes available to me now, to be able to complete it.
We are tonight debating the provision of amenities to enable Members of both this House and another place to do their jobs efficiently and well. There was a time when the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) was able to run a mile in four minutes, but on the occasion of my last speech it was as much as he could do to stagger through the Division Lobby in time for a Division. However, since then the hon. Gentleman has made better speed from the back benches to the front bench, so perhaps it can be said that after a time one gets accustomed to the conditions in which one has to work.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the poor way in which Members and the staff in this place are treated in matters of health. The Government have officially adopted the policy of instituting an occupational health service throughout the country. As a result of Recommendation 112 by the International Labour Office, the Government, in their White Paper entitled Inter national Labour Conference, Cmd. 1318, stated that all places of work should be encouraged to provide an occupational health unit to look after their staff.
When I raised this point some time ago, the Prime Minister told me that the House of Commons was not a factory. But that is just what it is. There are 500 manual workers here. On any

given day there are about 2,400 people in the Palace of Westminster. If we deduct from this figure the Members of this House and those of another place, it means that every day there are between 1,700 and 1,800 people here. Many of these are manual workers, and they ought to be provided with proper facilities. In addition to the people who actually work here, the House might be interested to know that last week I was told by a policeman that in two hours on Wednesday morning 2,500 visitors passed through this Chamber.
As the hon. Lady the Member for East Grinstead said, we have no first-aid service. If an accident occurs, there is a policeman who may or may not be available at that moment to render first-aid. Somebody has to get on the telephone and hope that the congestion of traffic will not prevent an ambulance being rushed from St. Thomas's Hospital to the Palace of Westminster to render assistance. The whole point of an occupational health service and a health unit is not that it would provide a glorified first-aid. It would prevent people who are working hard from becoming ill. It would prevent hon. Members from suffering from the consequences of having to work for long hours with inadequate tools and facilities, and the stress and strain which is part and parcel of our job. Hon. Members from both sides of the House owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). He acts as the unpaid medical practitioner for this House.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) in 1950 we failed to provide facilities for the staff. We have a room for secretaries. One of the most appalling sights of the twentieth century is a battery of hens on a farm crammed in a confined space and forcibly fed. I think that the next most horrible sight is that of 32 secretaries crammed into inadequate accommodation in a manner which is unhygienic, unpleasant and probably unlawful. A recent inspection by the Ministry of Labour showed that 32 secretaries were working in a space which was sufficient only for 20. How can we ask for decent conditions for people outside when we treat our own staff in that way?

Sir J. Duncan: As the hon. Gentleman mayknow, we have tried to thin out the secretaries, and by the improvements to be made in the accommodation in the roof and over the road, we shall reach the required standard of health in respect of accommodation.

Mr. Pavitt: I was delighted to see that in the Report presented by the hon. Gentleman's Committee. But I am concerned that we shall not kill off too many secretaries between now and 1966 and that we shall seek to do something in the immediate future.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Mrs. Barbara Castle(Blackburn) rose—

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell rose—

Mr. Pavitt: I will give way first to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Castle: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a totally unnecessary delay of two years in bringing the roof scheme into operation; that our Committee unanimously recommended its immediate introduction in August, 1961, but that as soon as the Committee was disbanded, the Government "ditched" the scheme?

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Members of Parliament at least have the Terrace to walk on. But neither secretaries nor the Press are allowed on to the Terrace? Would not it be a good idea if 20 yards of the Terrace, no more—perhaps at the House of Lords end—were made available for the use of members of the Press, who are an integral part of Parliament, and for secretaries?

Mr. Pavitt: I think the first point is well taken. As the House will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) brings knowledge to these matters, and she has worked day in and day out during the last two years and played her part.
What was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) strengthens the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) about the need for a permanent advisory committee to deal with such problems and the necessity for some sort of centralised control.

If I may return to the subject of the battery of hens upstairs—I am sorry, to the secretaries' room upstairs—I would remind the House that only last week a complaint was made about the fact that fumes were permeating that part of the building and making it almost impossible to work in the overcrowded conditions existing there.
I wish to warn hon. Members of the grave danger which we run because we are not doing the right thing to safeguard our health. I ask hon. Members to recall the deaths of hon. Members during the last 12 months. The medical problems of the twentieth century are not caused by fevers but by coronary thrombosis, and the stress and nervous strain under which we work. Such things, which are the killers of the 1960s are not uncommon in this place. We all have sad memories of people of first-class calibre and intellect who made a great contribution in this House but who were taken from us and their lives terminated all too soon. This House bears a measure of responsibility for that because of the work we do and the way in which we have to work, and because there has been a failure to take adequate precautionary measures and obtain proper advice so that illness might be prevented.
The least that we could have is a permanent medical officer of health for the 2,400 people who are here daily whose job would be to advise us how to prevent nervous breakdown, coronary thrombosis, ulcers and ailments due to stress. Secondly, at least one, two or three industrially-qualified State-registered nurses should be permanently on the building and able to give the facilities which are normally provided by good employers in industry or offices elsewhere.
With all the services which are being provided, we want the kind of facilities that would enable hon. Members to follow sensible regimens to maintain their health. For a brief period between 1945 and 1950, we had a gymnasium, which gradually lapsed. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) was once seen entering the Division Lobby in running shorts at about that time when a Division was called at an unfortunate moment.
I took a deputation of my hon. Friends to the Minister's predecessor and tried hard to see whether we could get a small facility like a squash court or a place where, in the short space of time that hon. Members have, we could at least try to keep up physically with the pace which we have to maintain mentally. We had considerable discussion with the previous Minister. It was found that the cost would be about £140, which was impossible to sanction. He tipped us, however, that if we would like to ask for a gymnasium for £10,000, it might be easier to get it through the Treasury, but that to ask for a small sum like £140 was difficult.
In any new buildings that we have in Bridge Street, consideration should be given to facilities whereby Members might at least keep a measure of physical fitness to cope with the kind of things that we do here. We know from weary experience of the way in which the benches are constructed and the posture we have. We sit here lounging back on our green seats getting a crick in the neck, trying to keep an ear to the microphone and an eye on whoever is speaking on the benches opposite. I do not know whether Mr. Speaker is more fortunate, but he sits in his Chair for longer hours than we do. Was advice taken from medical men about whether Mr. Speaker's chair was right for posture? Do we have an occupational hazard merely because of the way in which the seats are built? It costs as much to provide benches as seats which are therapeutically sound and which enable people to have the right physical approach.
In the new building, will there be a place where Members can relax? At present, few Members do. In the Smoke Room, the Tea Room and in the Corridors, we are all the time giving out nervous energy. We talk to our colleagues and to the Press. Most of us get here early in the morning and get home at midnight. During that time, we burn up three times as much nervous energy as the average person.
What kind of facilities will the Minister give us so that we have proper relaxation and are able to come away from the strain and bustle and be able, perhaps, to main-

tain sanity in a place which tends increasingly, to use a colloquialism, to drive us "round the bend"?
We are not seeking special privileges. We have special handicaps in the job which we do here. Because of the conditions and of the way our traditions run, we cannot live the normal life of people in most other professions, callings or places of work. One's weekends are taken up in travelling around the country. If we are not sitting on green benches here, we are sitting on green railway seats travelling in trains to the North, East, South or West. I expect that the experience of most hon. Members, on both sides, has been the same as mine. Last year, from October to December, the first weekend I had at home was the weekend before Christmas. We are here most mornings at 10 a.m. and we leave most nights after the 10 o'clock vote, getting home sometime around midnight. In those circumstances, it is up to the House to redress the balance.
We cannot go home at 6 o'clock in the evening to dig the garden or to play bowls. It is impossible. The only thing that can be done is so to arrange our accommodation as to give hon. Members who have to be on duty here the opportunity of so conducting their lives that they can bring to Our debates not half-dead persons or half-exhausted persons but people who are fully able physically to cope with their daily problems.
In the four minutes that I spoke in the previous debate—which I am now finishing, after three years—I tried very hard to make this point, and there was one concrete result. The Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries offered me and any other Member who liked to use it a squash court across the road. I was able to use it, together with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, on Tuesday of this week. The previous opportunity I had was last November, and previous to that, 15th May. I managed to get in three games of squash in just over a year. Why? Because I was on the London Government Bill, and it was impossible to move from here practically throughout this Session.
It is not a question of luxury, or of pampering hon. Members, to ask for facilities which would enable us to relax, and to lead normal lives. The hon. Member for South Angus was talking about this


place being built. I should like to know why, in a place that was opened only in 1950, we cannot have modern facilities. Downstairs we have telephones in the interview rooms, which many of us frequently use to dictate correspondence. Those telephones are antiquated. This morning I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) to see some of the work that was being done in my constituency, and we met a gentleman from Hall's telephones whose company had actually installed one of the first machines in this place in 1908. I think that some of those machines were transferred to the interview rooms downstairs. Whenever we try to conduct a conversation on the telephone there we feel that we are plugged into outer space, or perhaps Jodrell Bank. All kinds of sounds and extraneous noises come over the telephone, but conversation is not at all clear.
There are some modern telephones in this place which are clear, and all those of us who are a little hard of hearing have to chase round to locate a new one—because there are so many of the old ones. I have approached the Serjeant at Arms, who has kindly looked into the matter, but he tells me that we cannot afford to have modern-type telephones. How ridiculous. We have old telephones, which should enable Members to hear clearly the compaints of their constituents, but we cannot afford to replace them with modern instruments that will enable them to do so. We have to put up with those which were installed many years ago.
We are entitled to plead for these things because we have a job to do, which we try to do conscientiously. Most of all, however, I want to plead for the staff. If there should be a model employer it should be this place, but we fall down very bady on this. We must consider not only the point of view about new buildings and control which was put forward so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West—who has devoted a good deal of his time in the last 10 years to this subject—but the question of the way in which the people in these buildings are treated.
When the new buildings are opened, unless there is a personal and human touch about them we shall be blessed merely with a lot more bricks and mortar

without having provided what was advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), namely, conditions suitable for people who have to work efficiently; conditions of which, as employers, we need not be ashamed and of which it cannot be said that people ought not to be treated in this way in the twentieth century.

9.24 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I should have thought that this debate would have proved one thing conclusively for this Government, and that is the need for the immediate installation of democratic control of the premises and facilities of the House of Commons.
On the very rare occasions when we get an opportunity to debate our needs and the needs of the Officers and staff of this House it is as though a floodgate were opened and a spate of complaint and grievances comes through. We have had a succession of excellent speeches from both sides of the House, every one of which was packed with evidence of the unsatisfactory nature of the conditions in which we are expected to work and serve our constituents and in which the Officers of this House and members of the staff are supposed to serve us and the public.
How much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) with his sense of frustration and the warning he gave us—which many of us have given before, but which it is right should be repeated on every occasion when we discuss this matter. We are not concerned here merely selfishly with the comforts of hon. Members, but with the basic principle of the rights of the Legislature against the Executive. Our complaint against the Government is that they have deliberately, persistently and unnecessarily eroded and undermined the powers of hon. Members of this House to act as an efficient democratic check upon the Executive.
I happen to disagree with my hon. Friend about moving Parliament from this site. I think that he is perhaps a little too modern in that demand, but from many years of experience of serving on your advisory committees, Mr. Speaker, I say that there is an enormous amount which could be done, even within the physical limitations with which we are faced, to translate this House into a modern democratic machine. Why is it


not done? I agree with the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) that we did an enormous amount once we got ourselves established as an Advisory Committee. But we had an enormous political battle to get the first Advisory Committee established.
This has been spasmodic and inadequate, and the future development of our requirements is once again threatened. Why is that? I suggest to the Government that they must face this fact. The reason is simple—that the working facilities of hon. Members of the House of Commons are within the gift of the Government. That is what has to be put right before anything else can be put right. The Bridge Street scheme in the Report before us is another outstanding proof of this. Once again an ad hoc committee was given the job of allocating space in Bridge Street which had been—chosen by us? No. It was decreed by the Government that we should have it.
This is a point which the hon. Lady the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) overlooked when challenged by the Minister. As a member of the Committee she ought to have remembered—I am sure she will agree—that when the ad hoc committee was set up to deal with the Bridge Street scheme its terms of reference were such that it had to base the allocation on 40,000 sq. ft. of space. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has done a wonderful job on this question for many years now. I am sure that all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, would express our Parliamentary sense of gratitude for the time he has put in, but he will remember that we soon found when we made a list of all the immediate requirements to be put forward that 40,000 sq. ft. would not be enough.
Some of us asked, "Are we bound by this? Who fixed this? Why is a great block of offices for civil servants going up? Why can room be found for civil servants and for the police? What about Parliament? Where do we stand in this rating and in competition for space in what should be a Parliamentary precinct?" Some of us said, "Must we be bound by this?" The hon. Member for South Angus said—sort of nervously, being a great constitutionalist and knowing that we were all like dogs on the end of a lead and not free to run as we

wanted—"Our terms of reference will not allow us to increase it." We had an awful constitutional kerfuffle to decide whether we would be in order in asking for 10,000 sq. ft. more. We were never given free scope in this. We had a long battle to get the 40,000 sq. ft. increased to 50,000. A vote of thanks ought to be passed to us for having spent so much of our nervous energy in getting the extra 10,000 sq. ft. We had to wrench it out of the Government.

Mrs. Emmet: I should like to thank the hon. Lady for dotting the "i" that I tried to make, which was that we asked for the minimum, rather under pressure.

Mrs. Castle: That is quite right. We were a unanimous Committee. This is the interesting and democratically significant point. If we get the back benchers of this House together, a Committee of this kind has no party division. We were all agreed on the minimum requirements for space and facilities in a modern democratic institution.
What is the second significant point about the Bridge Street scheme? We know its origin, but what is to be its future? We are told that there is to be another ad hoc Committee. How kind of the Government to see that somebody does not forget to suggest some minimum facilities that Members of Parliament might want. We are getting sick and tired of ad hoc Committees, when we consider the time that is wasted trying to establish what the "hoc" is to which we are "added". This is ridiculous. As I said, we had a Parliamentary battle in order to get the first Advisory Committee set up in 1960. We were told that that was to consider the roof scheme. Then came the end of the Session and we had to be reappointed in November, 1960. In August, 1961, we reported. We did so unanimously. We reported that it was desperately urgent that the scheme should be proceeded with in the Summer Recess. The day after the Chairman reported that to the House through you, Mr. Speaker, and we thought it was all agreed. We then discovered that the Government, for their internal reasons, had decided to delay the scheme. It has been delayed for two years, and that is why I say that some of these minimum requirements are still hanging fire. For two years we have been waiting for that


scheme. The first stage could have been completed and the second stage half completed this summer.
One of the things that I suggested concerned the waitresses. Goodness knows, there are no more hard-working women than they. Somtimes they are fit to drop at the end of the day, particularly on a hot summer's day. They have long hours and split duties. They spend their off-duty time in a little hole of a room. I suggest that there ought to be a roof garden to which the staff the Press and anybody else could go when they need to see God's light and air occasionally. It could have been provided. But no; the moment we recommended that, it was politically inconvenient for the Government. What did the Government do? They disbanded the Committee.
We had eight months' fight with the Leader of this House, the trustee of the vitality of Parliamentary democracy. We had eight months' fight with him to get ourselves set up again. Then we were set up ad hoc. The "hoc" to which we were "added" this time was Bridge Street. Then we had another two months' expenditure of nervous energy. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West fought shoulder to shoulder to demand from the Leader of the House that our terms of reference should be extended to enable us to consider the effects of the roof scheme on the Bridge Street scheme, and the effects of the Bridge Street scheme on the roof scheme, and so we went all round the mulberry bush. Are we to come to this place to play this game of hide-and-seek concerning the minimum rights that we ought to be granted? We have had enough argument about what rights should be entrenched in the Constitution of Malta. I could suggest one right which should be entrenched here.
Why cannot we have a permanent Advisory Committee on Accommodation? I suggest that the Government have refused it because they know that once they grant that request, it will be the thin end of the wedge of the principle of democratic control of this House. Why should we have to be guided by the old-fashioned ideologies and romanticisms of the Leader of the House who said he thought that none of us wanted the connection between this House and the Royal Palace to be severed? We are severing

it. If the Bridge Street scheme means anything at all, if the premises over there are to be part of Parliament, then clearly the control of those premises ought to be under the same body which controls these premises.
If there is to be royal control of this Palace but the Minister of Works or somebody else, certainly a non-royal, is to be in charge of Bridge Street—or is the Lord Great Chamberlain going there too?—it will be ridiculous. If there is divided control, there will be a difference in status. This will defeat some of the main purposes of our attempt to overspill into Bridge Street without making people there feel that they have gone into an overspill annexe.
We said to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, "We in the Committee are determined to make the place over the road an integral part of the building so that you will not be pushed over into a subordinate type of accommodation if you go there". It was implicit in our Report that the Bridge Street building by character, appearance and facilities should be part and parcel of Parliament. If it is to be all that, it must clearly be under the same control.
One thing only logically flows from that. We should at last face the fact that we must have a House of Commons Committee or Commission. All the money spent on this place is voted for by the House. Every bit of building that is done is paid for by the House. There is the roof scheme. We are to have a new layer in the House. We paid for it. It was voted for by the House and will be paid for by public money. It does not come out of the royal fund. It is nothing to do with the Palace. That scheme is paid for by us. Yet it is still said that we must keep the insignia and control of the Lord Great Chamberlain.
We disagree. We say that it is time that we recognised the fact that we shall never get the facilities we need until we have a House of Commons Commission, with you, Mr. Speaker, as Chairman, with the appropriate Ministers—that is, a Treasury Minister, the Minister of Works, and the Leader of the House—and a predominance of back benchers drawn from both sides of the House as members, and with a vice-chairman who is a backbencher and who shall be able to answer Questions on accommoda-


tion in the House and the facilities of the House in his turn at the Dispatch Box. The Committee should produce an annual report which should be annually automatically debated by the House.
I suggest, too, that their Lordships should have a similar Committee or Commission. They have a sessional Committee now. They can continue to have that sessional Committee, or they can have a permanent Commission. I want a body that works not only in sessions but in the recesses. I work in the recesses, I want the democratic control over my working facilities not to be interrupted when the House rises, as it is at present.
If we had that, we could have a joint planning body of the two House Committees to plan and supervise the development of this new Parliamentary precinct. I beg the Leader of the House seriously to consider this. I believe him to be an enlightened man who, once he gets out of his bad ways as a party man, cares about democracy and the vitality of democracy. He has an enormous responsibility here. There is not much time. We have been told that the plans are still fluid. Therefore, this is the moment to set up this joint representative planning Committee to keep under continual review the development of the plans and ensure that we get something which is worthy of the future—the long-term future—during which it will have to serve us.
In addition, we must have a House of Commons Commission in being the whole time, to be in charge of the running of our part of these premises. The joint planning committee on the Bridge Street site would then take into account many of the excellent points which have been made today. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he did not like the idea of a shops frontage on Bridge Street. I entirely agree that, if there is room for commercial building there, there is room to give many more facilities and amenities to the Parliamentary section.
A glance at the annexe to the Report shows that whereas we are to have 500,000 sq. ft., which it has taken us a life-and-death struggle to get, 40,000 sq. ft. will go for commercial purposes. Why should we be given a penury of space in

order that there may be shops and commercial premises there when we could be building a new frontage and providing for the future by building accommodation, as has been suggested, of the sort we need; perhaps sleeping accommodation for hon. Members who represent provincial and other constituencies, recreation and rest rooms for the Press and our staff—and, indeed, for ourselves? There are plenty of uses to which this extra space could have been put.
I suggest that until we have this continuing democratic control over our affairs we shall never get the facilities we need to make us efficient. We all know what they are—and I recognise the reference in the Library Committee's Report to the fact that we have for many years been asking for better services. New and young hon. Members often have a scientific background nowadays. They are nationalist in outlook. They are interested in various technical matters and they need facilities commensurate with the broad and challenging new age in which we live.
It is absurd that if I receive a letter from Germany I cannot get it translated in the House of Commons. If, perhaps at an hour's notice, perhaps as the result of a debate suddenly being announced, I want someone to go quickly through past debates to find a quotation of a particular Minister made at a particular time, the staff is not available to do this, despite the goodwill of the Librarians. We should have a Press-cuttings service as well.
Is it not ridiculous that we should still have to pay 4d. a copy for every copy we get from the copying machine after the first three copies? I think of the years it took us to get a second copying machine installed. I think of the battle we had to keep it open after 6 p.m. I admit that after we campaigned for a considerable time we at least have it open until 10 p.m. or the rising of the House.
When this House rises for the recess, as we do tomorrow, we lose all control over these things. What will happen to this copying machine during the recess? Will it be kept open until 10 p.m.? I have no say in these things and nor have you, Mr. Speaker. You become impotent from the point of view of defending our facilities as from 5 p.m. tomorrow. This


is a ridiculous state of affairs because, whatever is said, we do not go away on holiday for three months. That is another one of those myths. I shall have 10 days in the country and on Monday, 12th August, I shall be here dictating a backlog of correspondence, as will other hon. Member. While I am here I will not even be able to get a cup of tea because there will be no refreshment facilities available, not even for the staff and secretaries. What will happen if I want a guide during the recess? Do I have any control over whether or not a guide is available? Will I have to pay? After all, that comes under the Lord Great Chamberlain.
During the coming three months' recess hon. Members are devoid of all power. It is as though we have all gone on holiday. This tempts me to mention dozens of other things, but I do not wish to delay our proceedings. I was delighted to learn that the Press Gallery is at last waking up to these facts and has set up a working party to consider the status, rights and working conditions of Parliamentary journalists. There is concern among members of the Press Gallery about their position, and they are right. I know of the terrible conditions under which they work. Our Committee tried to help them and I will back them in what they are doing. I think that they are right. They put up with conditions which they should not have to bear. I hope that this new sign of life on their part will mean that they will be alerted to their duty to wake up the country to the sort of conditions under which their legislators live and work. Perhaps they will battle a bit more strongly on our side, too.

9.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharples): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works said at the conclusion of his speech that he would welcome the ideas on this matter of Members on both sides of the House. I think that this debate has been most valuable. We have heard a great many views to which we shall certainly pay attention.
It is, I think, fair to say that in the brief which we gave to Sir William Holford we accepted the recommendations of the Duncan Committee in full

with the sole exception of the change in accommodation for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and the reasons for that were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan).
If I may refresh hon. Members memories, the recommendations of the Committee were that the new accommodation should
"(a) be capable of expansion;
(b) be physically connected to the Palace of Westminster by a private access;
(c) be so sited and have such facilities as may be necessary to ensure that Members can reach the Division Lobbies in the time prescribed by the Standing Orders;
(d) have adequate car parking facilities;
(e) be designed, equipped and administered as a Parliamentary Precinct and in no way associated with any commercial development."
In the plan which Sir William Holford has produced—and it is a feasibility plan and not in any way a final plan—there are no commercial premises directly connected with the Parliamentary extension or precinct. However, one thing has become clear during the course of the debate, and that is that hon. Members on both sides object to the idea of having shops and commercial premises opposite this House in the redevelopment in Bridge Street itself. That is certainly a matter to which my right hon. Friend will pay attention. I think that there are good reasons for having some shopping facilities in that area. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus spoke of the idea of having shopping facilities in an arcade behind. I think that that idea, which is partially incorporated in Sir William Holford's plan, has very much to commend it.
I do not think hon. Members would expect me to answer in the very few minutes which remain all the points which have been raised because, as I said, the main purpose of this debate was to hear the views of hon. Members and to take those views away and study them carefully. However, one or two points have been raised which I think I should try to answer.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who, I know, has made a great study of these questions, asked me particularly about the architect. As I said, Sir William Holford was commis-


sioned to produce a feasibility study of the area as a whole and, when the plan in broad outline has been worked out, it will be necessary for an architect to be appointed. We have a quite open mind about that. We shall welcome very much the views of the Advisory Committee which I understand you, Mr. Speaker, have agreed to set up on the steps which we should take in the selection of the architect.
I can see that in a scheme of this kind there may be objections to an open competition, but, again, that is a matter on which we should welcome the advice of the Advisory Committee. We had an open competition in connection with the Broad Sanctuary scheme, and for that building a young, although comparatively well known, man was chosen.
The other specific question asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, West concerned the selection of the contractor for the roof-space scheme. This was done by selective tender. A number of firms which were considered capable of doing the work were invited to tender and a firm price contract has been negotiated for it.
A point which has been raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leeds, West and his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), is the status of the new accommodation. It is probably easier if I divide this into two parts. First, as to day-to-day administration, the new Bridge Street building will be in exactly the same position as this House, in that it will be administered by the Serjeant at Arms on Mr. Speaker's behalf, but as it will not be part of the Palace of Westminster it will not come under the jurisdiction of the Lord Great Chamberlain.
In due course, we shall have to consider whether the new building is a Parliamentary precinct in the legal sense. That will need careful consideration, because it will affect questions of privilege such as the suspension of a Member, the service of a writ on a Member, the committal of strangers for contempt, the free access of Members to the House and even such questions as the serving of alcohol while the House is sitting. That is a matter that we shall want to consider very carefully, and we are fortunate that we have the time to be able to do

this. The Government will come forward with proposals, which will be prepared with the help of the authorities of the House and will be discussed through the usual channels. This will be a fairly complicated business.

Mr. C. Pannell: A most important consideration, which has been voiced to me by other hon. Members who are not here tonight, is the road widening at that point. Will the Government bear in mind whether Bridge Street is already too narrow in the interests of traffic and all sorts of public considerations and consider this in any scheme?

Mr. Sharples: The hon. Member will have noticed that improvements are suggested in Sir William Holford's plan, but certainly, in view of what has been said tonight by the hon. Member and others, we shall give careful consideration to that point.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) asked whether facilities for simultaneous translation can be provided in the new building. This, too, is a matter which we shall consider As to simultaneous translation in the Committee Rooms, there is the possibility of being able to hire equipment as and when it is required. The advantage of that system over having fixed equipment is that we could use any of the Committee Rooms. I saw in operation only a few days ago a system of wireless transmitters with a single wire round each Committee Room which would enable these facilities to be provided in any of the Committe Rooms.

Mrs. Emmet: That is perfectly true, but has the point been studied whether this apparatus is part of the ordinary equipment of a Committee Room, as a tool of the House at the disposal of any Members who wish to use it, and not to be hired and paid for separately accordingly to its use?

Mr. Sharples: That depends upon the purpose for which it is used. If it is used for purposes of the House or of an all-party committee of the House it could legitimately be said to be part of the facilities of the House, but if it is used for a single party meeting or for a political meeting it might be more difficult to justify. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mean."] Every case should be judged upon its merits.

Mrs. Emmet: When I suggested that it should be part of the ordinary tools of the House I meant that it should not matter whether it was a party meeting or not. Committee Rooms are not charged for according to whether they are for party meetings or not. This facility would be like a piece of writing paper or an ink pot or a Room.

Mr. Sharples: What we have been devoting our minds to is getting the technical side of this right, the means of providing these facilities for the House, to which I think we have now got the answer, but so far as payment for the facilities goes it is for the cases to be put up and decided on their merits.

Mr. Dalyell: Petty.

Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) spoke of facilities for health. I am informed, although I did not know it, that there is a well-equipped first-aid Room in the House. It is on the Lower Waiting Room Corridor.
I do not think that in the remaining two minutes which I have the House would expect me to go into the very wide constitutional issues which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West and the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn. All I would say is that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have listened with great attention to all that has been said in this debate. We have had the benefit of hearing, amongst others, ray hon. Friend the Member for South Angus who was Chairman of the Committee which did this most valuable work. I am sure the whole House owes a debt of gratitude to him and to other hon. and right hon. Members who took part in that Advisory Committee. We have also had the benefit of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) who spoke as Chairman of the Library Committee. I am sure that the House will want to study very carefully indeed the propositions which he put to the House and will want to make recommendations to his Committee if those facilities are required.
We are very grateful indeed for the advice which we have received from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. John Rodgers: Could my hon. Friend say whether he and his right hon. Friend are fully seized of the necessity to provide a room for every Member and not just 280?

Mr. Sharples: We are in fact providing for more than 280, although not a room for every Member of the House, for reasons which were considered by the Duncan Committee.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

STANDING ORDERS (REVISION)

Report from the Select Committee on Standing Orders (Revision) to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Considered accordingly.

10.1 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That the Amendments to the Standing Orders of this House relating to Public Business and the new Standing Order, recommended by the Select Committee in their Report and stated in the Appendix thereto, be made, subject to the following modifications, namely, in the new Standing Order No. 4 (Precedence of Government Business), paragraph (4), leave out "fourth" and insert "fifth", paragraph (6), leave out "two Wednesdays" and insert "four days other than Fridays", leave out paragraph (7), paragraph (8), leave out from "Fridays" to end and insert "and on such days as may be appointed by the House in respect of Motions having precedence on days other than Fridays", paragraph (9), leave out "fourth" and insert "fifth"; and that Standing Orders New. 4 (Precedence of Government Business), 5 (Precedence of bills after Whitsuntide or Easter), and 77 (Notice of prayers) be repealed.
I should like to say a word of thanks to the Select Committee on Standing Orders (Revision) which, although it was appointed only on 19th July, has prepared and published its detailed Report. The Committee has done no more than bring the Standing Orders into conformity with the existing practice of the House, but the Government, after the usual consultation, have decided to recommend a further simplification of the Standing Order relating to Private Members' Time, and that is the reason for this Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

MALAYA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

10.2 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That Sir John Barlow, Mr. Thomas Fraser, Mr. Kenneth Robinson and Mr. Colin Turner have leave of absence to present, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the Malayan House of Representatives.
The House will know that the composition of this delegation has been arranged in consultation with you, Mr. Speaker, and the delegation will be accompanied by Mr. Gordon, the Fourth Clerk at the Table. It only remains to wish them a very pleasant journey to a very pleasant country and say that we shall look forward to their report on their return.

Mr. John Hynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a comment on the statements in the Press to the effect that the act of establishing a federation is likely to be postponed for various reasons which have been mentioned? Does it affect the date, or is the date for the delegation definitely fixed?

Mr. Macleod: I understand that the date will be fixed. It is a complicated position, as the right hon. Gentleman will realise, because we originally planned this gift to another House before the concept of greater Malaysia came about. Now it will be a gift to the Malayan House of Representatives. Unless there is some unexpected development, the delegation will leave as I have indicated and present the chair on our behalf.

Question put and agreed to.

A.80 ROAD, MOODIESBURN

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

10.4 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to raise a matter of very great concern to at least a thousand families at Moodiesburn in my constituency. This is a council estate which borders the A.80. The road at this point is a dual carriageway which

has been built for speed. It is the road between Glasgow and Stirling.
Since January, 1960, just after the people had come into the estate to live, there have been two fatal accidents on the road beside the estate. A woman of 50 and an old person of 73 lost their lives trying to cross this busy road. There have been three very serious accidents to pedestrians. One involved a child of 3, another a child of 11 and the third was to the school-crossing patrolman. This man, who was doing his duty in trying to guide the children safely across the road, was knocked down and very seriously injured.
From the police reports, in addition to these two fatal accidents and three very serious accidents, I find that there have been five accidents classed as slight. Three of these happened to children—aged 8, 9 and 11 respectively—and two involved 28-year-old women. All of these were accidents to pedestrians trying to find their way across this very busy thoroughfare.
I want to give only three examples from the police reports of accidents where pedestrians were not involved. I have a whole list from which to choose. The first is the case of an east-bound motor car which mounted the central reservation and collided with a lamp standard. The second involved a westbound motor car which mounted the central reservation and collided with a lamp standard. It is a good thing that it was a lamp standard in each case and not someone trying to cross the road, standing on the reservation while waiting for the other carriageway to be clear. The third involved an east-bound lorry which collided with a stationary car facing east. The car then collided with a stationary bus facing east.
I take these three examples from among the many accidents to vehicles that have taken place there. I think that the Under-Secretary of State must be aware of how the parents in this area are feeling about what they think is the general disregard for safety shown by the Secretary of State.
I wrote to the Secretary of State on 28th January last. On 20th February I put a Question to him about this road.


His answer was wholly unsatisfactory. On the 9th May I had a reply from him to my letter. This reply seems completely complacent to me and I assure the Under-Secretary of State that it is totally unacceptable both to my constituents and to me.
I have not time tonight to deal with all the contents of that letter, so I will only deal with some of them. The third paragraph says:
With the two streams of traffic divided by a central reservation there are plenty of gaps in the traffic for pedestrians to use for crossing without being appreciably delayed, although the accident record shows that they do not always do so in safety.
That is very true. The accident record does indeed show that my constituents cannot cross this road in safety.
Mention is made in the letter of the reservation. What the Secretary of State is saying to me is that, when there is a gap on one carriageway, people can cross to the central reservation, where they may wait in safety until there is a gap in the traffic on the other carrriage-way. But I have quoted examples—I could have quoted more—to show that, although this road is restricted to a 30 m.p.h. speed limit, vehicles do not hold to that speed. They go at a much greater speed. If any pedestrian had been standing on the central reservation which the Secretary of State regards as so important to safety, there might have been a serious or fatal accident.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say of the proposals being made by his Department instead of a bridge or a tunnel:
The basis of the present proposals is therefore to fence off as much of the central reservation as possible and concentrate the pedestrian traffic. In particular, we think we can stop people crossing directly opposite the 'bus stops where they are liable to do so without looking.
Money is to be spent concentrating pedestrians at the very spot where a bridge or tunnel could be built—I prefer a bridge. The letter went on:
We are prepared to put in a pedestrian crossing but the police may feel that, even with advance warning signs, the crossing will not be seen easily by drivers.
That is exactly what the police think. I have a letter from the assistant chief constable of the Lanarkshire Constabulary in which he describes a meeting

between Ministry officials and members and officials of the county council and says:
During the discussion, the police viewpoint which was expressed, was that while it was accepted that the terrain at this junction presented certain difficulties in regard to the erection of a pedestrian over bridge or under-pass, it was doubted whether the provision of a pedestrian crossing would make for any reduction in the number of accidents. It was in fact pointed out that the provision of such a crossing might well lead to an increase in the number of accidents, especially nose to tail collisions between motor vehicles, on a road where the 30 miles per hour speed limit is flouted regularly, despite police action with the radar speedometer and detections with stop watches.
In other words, the Lanarkshire Constabulary is doing everything in its power to keep vehicles within the limit and yet the assistant chief constable points out how impossible it is and how strongly he feels that a pedestrian crossing where the Secretary of State hopes to concentrate pedestrian traffic would lead to more accidents. The Secretary of State went on:
I said this was the present position and, of course, it may change. I understand that the Council are going to build more houses, served by the same approach road, and no doubt the traffic will steadily increase.
We have 1,000 houses in the council scheme and the local authority proposes to build another 250.
The Secretary of State must know how busy that road is with all the heavy traffic between Glasgow and Stirling, and all the traffic going north, but he goes on to say:
So the time may come when there are enough people crossing and sufficient delay to ensure that a bridge (or underpass) is really used.
I have never read anything quite so complacent.
The last paragraph of the letter shows quite clearly that the Secretary of State is refusing to sanction the building of a bridge in this area, and the reasons given in the earlier paragraphs are mere subterfuges to save the Government the expense involved in constructing this bridge. I say that because if the Secretary of State can envisage the necessity for this bridge if another 250 houses are built, he must realise that at the moment a bridge is essential at this spot.
This bridge is essential to save the lives of the really young. We cannot put


old heads on young shoulders. It is essential to save the lives of the really old who have to cross this road. Finally, it is essential to ensure the peace of mind among the parents who live in the houses bordering on this spot.
If this bridge were constructed, it would do all the things that I have suggested it would do. As the Secretary of State has said that steps are to be taken to concentrate the pedestrian traffic into one area, surely this is the ideal place at which to build a bridge? Whatever happens in the future, the problem of the service roads will still be there, but if about 25 per cent, more buildings are constructed, the Government will consider building a bridge at this point. This shows that this is not a question of service roads, or openings on the central reservation, and the only conclusion to which I can come is that for financial reasons the Government have decided against the building of a bridge.
I had a long fight to get a bridge at Salsburgh on the A.8. That bridge has saved many lives, and the compelling reasons which necessitated the construction of a bridge at Salsburgh exist at Moodiesburn. We want the bridge. The people of Moodiesburn want it, and they cannot understand why, if the A.8 was dangerous at Salsburgh, and it was considered necessary to construct a bridge to ease the problem there, the Government will not agree to construct a bridge at Moodiesburn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not merely read a brief, but will take note of what I have been trying to say and will get the Secretary of State to alter his decision not to construct this bridge which is so necessary.

10.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): Let me say straight away that I entirely agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that there is a road safety problem at Moodiesburn. The accident figures, some of which the hon. Lady quoted, give real cause for concern, and perhaps I might shortly put these accident figures on the record. The hon. Lady has mentioned some of them, but there are others which I should like to mention.
With regard to the two motor vehicle accidents on the central reservation, might I mention that one was at 3.0 a.m. and the other was at 1.45 a.m., and the accident in which a bus was involved, happened on ice.
Over the four years and five months from January, 1959, to the end of May, 1963, there were 10 personal injury accidents on the length of trunk road at Moodiesburn which is within the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. This stretch of road is about one-third of a mile long.
On purely statistical grounds, this accident record, which represents a rate of about three per million vehicle miles, is not above average for a section of road subject to a speed limit. What causes particular concern, and the hon. Lady brought this out very clearly, is that seven of these accidents involved nine pedestrians. Two pedestrians have been killed, three seriously injured and four slightly injured. The average of two pedestrian casualties a year on a stretch of road like this is extremely worrying, and this of course is why the hon. Lady has raised the matter.
Where I find it difficult to agree with her is over the solution which she suggests to the problem. The problem is a difficult one and the solution to it is difficult, too. I shall try to explain why. First I must deal in some detail with the geography of the site, because this is the essence of the problem.
The Glasgow-Stirling Road, through Moodiesburn, was reconstructed as a dual carriage way and opened to traffic at the end of 1958. There are pavements on both sides and a central reservation divides the carriageway. Moodiesburn itself is a village centred on the crossroads with Avenuehead Road on one side and Stoneyetts Road on the other, both running into the A.80.
There are about one dozen houses on the south side and two on the north side which have direct access to the trunk road, but Stoneyetts Read on the north side also provides access to a large council housing estate, to which the hon. Lady made reference, on which there are about 1,000 houses, some of them as close as 60 yards from the trunk road. People from this estate travel in both directions to work and are served by four bus stop draw-ins, two on each side of the main road.
Because of the Avenuehead Road junction and the houses on both sides with access to the trunk roads, there are several breaks in the central reservation, and there is a lay-by serving one group of cottages in addition to the bus draw-ins. Lastly, the road dips slightly towards the junction on both sides and a small burn is piped diagonally under the road in this dip.
A count of traffic taken on 7th March, 1963, showed that the trunk road carried about 7,500 vehicles in a 12-hour day which is 300 vehicles an hour on each carriageway. Over the same period of 12 hours, 612 pedestrians of whom 174 were children crossed the road in the neighbourhood of the main junction. The county council maintains a school-crossing patrol at this point, but of that number a third of the children and more than a third of the adults cross the road more than 50 yards away from the junction.
The problem is this. Most of the pedestrians who cross the trunk road come into it from Avenuehead Road or Stoneyetts Road. They do not, however, all cross at the junction but spread out according to where they are going. Clearly, the best way to make the crossing safe would be to segregate the pedestrians from the motor cars and we have carefully considered this. The level and the burn do not make it easy to have an underpass, so it really comes back to the question of a pedestrian bridge. If such a bridge prevented two pedestrian accidents a year, which is the number on average experienced over the last four years, it would undoubtedly be worth while, but my difficulty, quite honestly, is that I am by no means convinced that a pedestrian bridge at Moodiesburn would be effective in stopping accidents.
Experience based on studies made by the Road Research Laboratories show that if people are to use a bridge it must be the quickest way across the road. If a bridge takes the same time as crossing on the level, 80 per cent. will use it. If it is quicker to cross on the road very few people will use a bridge unless they are prevented from crossing on the level.
At Moodiesburn there is only an average of five cars a minute on each carriageway, or eight at the peak hour, so the gaps in which pedestrians can cross safely are frequent. They will not

find it quicker to cross a bridge when they are catching a bus, and they certainly will not find it easier if they are wheeling a pram. Therefore, the only way to make sure that a bridge would be used would be to fence off the pavements from the road for some distance on either side of the crossroads where the bridge would be.
Unfortunately, on this site we cannot do this thoroughly because of the bus stops and the lay-by at the cottages. We cannot achieve the same thing by fencing the central reservation because of the gaps for traffic coming out of and going into the two side roads of Avenuehead Road and Stoneyetts Road. People would therefore be able to cross on the level if they went a few yards along the road, and I am afraid that this is exactly what they would do.
This is basically the difference between the hon. Lady and myself. She comes right out for a bridge. My best judgment is that as things are at present it would not be used, at least to the extent of preventing accidents, and therefore the expense could not be justified. What we are proposing, therefore, is to try to concentrate the pedestrian traffic so far as we can and to protect it by a pedestrian crossing at the most suitable point.

Miss Herbison: Has the Minister taken into account the advice of the chief constable for Lanarkshire? Will he be sure to deal with the question why, in the future, we might have a bridge, when all the things that he is telling us now will still obtain?

Mr. Leburn: The chief constable has not yet given his recommendations to my right hon. Friend. Neither has the county council.
Our proposal is to close two minor gaps in the central reservation and fence a considerable length of it—although we cannot fence up the two main gaps. Additionally, we propose fencing three corners at the junction. This would undoubtedly make conditions safer for pedestrians than they are at present.
The hon. Lady has quoted from my right hon. Friend's letter to her. He informed her then that the time may well come when the number of people crossing, or the delay for pedestrians owing to the increase in traffic, is such that a


bridge really would be used. In other words, if there is so much traffic that the delay in getting across encouraged people to use a bridge, we could justify it, and I believe that it then might be worth while. My right hon. Friend has invited the views of the county council and the police on these proposals, and when we receive them we will consider them carefully. If they put forward modifications or suggestions for dealing with this matter in a different way I shall be very happy to consider them, as will my right hon. Friend.
I am not aware of the views put forward to the hon. Lady—at least to the extent that I could not take them into account, because at the time of the meeting to which she has referred, which I believe was on 6th May, the police did not have our detailed plans in front of them.
The hon. Lady raised the question of the parallel of the bridge at Salsburgh. What this bridge does is to illustrate what I have been trying to indicate about Moodiesburn. I agree that the bridge at Salsburgh has gone a long way towards curing the problem that exercised the local people, the local authorities, the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend's Department. But the conditions at Salsburgh were almost ideal for a bridge. The trunk road is well below the level of housing development and there are no houses near the bridge with direct access to the road. It was possible therefore to design a bridge, even with sloping approaches, which offered a method of crossing the road as quick as going over the level of the roadway itself. And so, by the use of fencing, people were given no alternative but to cross the road by the bridge; and yet this did not inflict any hardship on them. The result is a successful bridge, but it does give point to the established fact that pedestrian bridges or underpasses must be as convenient as direct crossings if use is to be made of them; otherwise, in order to force people to use bridges or underpasses, fences must be erected, and this is not always possible. It was possible at Salsburgh. It is not possible at Moodiesburn.

Miss Herbison: So we are never to get a bridge.

Mr. Leburn: At places where there is a pedestrian problem the solution must

be devised having regard to the special circumstances of the site. There is no cut and dried solution which can be applied to every site but the best has to be chosen for any particular site under consideration.
I want to assure the hon. Lady that we have not been complacent about this. I myself went to Moodiesburn some two months ago. I went again to Moodiesburn on Saturday, and I watched the traffic there for no less than two hours, and I tried to find a solution to this problem. It is an extremely difficult problem. I am sorry, I still cannot go with her and say that I formed the impression that a bridge would be the solution, because I really cannot see that the bridge would in practice be used. I cannot see these young people for whom she is so much concerned in fact using a bridge when it is so easy to get across the road in its present condition. Traffic of five vehicles a minute, or eight a minute at peak hours, allows fair opportunity to pedestrians to get across, and I really do not think that a bridge, certainly at this time, would be the solution. But, as I have said, we will consider these matters as they come from the county council and the police, and I shall be very happy, when these have been considered, to get in touch with the hon. Lady again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock